Help for non union members

sangie595

stevemLS wrote: »

That is not my experience.

As a (former) union rep I referred at least two cases to the union's solicitors that were not liability issues.

I don't know why any union, though, would provide support to non-members. That is the whole point of membership. We had a very strict rule that we were not allowed to advise or represent within the first four weeks of membership and external legal advice could not be accessed for the first 3 months.

Ditto. And we do not refer to any old solicitors either, as the post says. We refer to Thompsons, with whom we have a contracting arrangement, and who have the finest employment law section in the country. The poster must have some very odd union experience if they think any of us use "ambulance chasers" - I don't know a single union who do as was described.

C_Mababejive

sangie595 wrote: »

Ditto. And we do not refer to any old solicitors either, as the post says. We refer to Thompsons, with whom we have a contracting arrangement, and who have the finest employment law section in the country. The poster must have some very odd union experience if they think any of us use "ambulance chasers" - I don't know a single union who do as was described.

Yes i am awre of Thompsons and the traditional links between certain law firms and various TUs. Are they likely to take on the costs of litigation for a single member who,for example, thought they were being bullied or had an issue with working hours and where there was no big cash win?

sangie595

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Yes i am awre of Thompsons and the traditional links between certain law firms and various TUs. Are they likely to take on the costs of litigation for a single member who,for example, thought they were being bullied or had an issue with working hours and where there was no big cash win?

Absolutely yes, they do. Because they do not bear any of the costs of litigation. And anyone who knew anything at all about trades union functions knows that. We do not employ no-win no-fee solicitors, and the size of the win has absolutely no relevance to a case - the union pays and always has. So win or lose, the union pays their fees. The only factors for consideration are the unions - not the lawyers - and that is based on whether we think, having taken legal advice, there is evidence to support a case, or whether, even if the prospects are not good, whether there is an over-riding issue in the interest of our members which is worth pursuing even if against the odds.

If you look at almost every single "big win" (not in cash terms though) for workers, such as interpretations of working hours, sick pay, and holiday pay - not one of which is a "big win", 99.9% of the cases are funded through unions in part or in full. And the rest of the fees are usually pro bono representation. No individual could ever afford the fees to take cases to the Supreme Court or to Europe - and every case has the potential to end up there when it begins. And legal insurance definitely doesn't cover these sorts of costs. Only unions and union lawyers have an interest in representing cases which are in the interest of workers, but doesn't hand down a huge cheque, and that is where most case law is formed - from union fees.