A Death By Eight Million Cuts

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

For example the Employment Rights Act of 1996 (passed by a Conservative government) conferred the right not to be unfairly dismissed without specified reasons after one year of employment. In 2012 this right was changed to after two years. So rights can indeed decline.

Simply not possible to dismiss people though if that's your inference. Employee still has the option of legal action as a last resort.

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

I may be very naive but I have a question.

I've never had a job which was represented by a trade union. Perhaps I've been lucky but I've just worked hard and been satisfied with the trade of my service and time for money. I've moved jobs for more money but only because I wanted it, not because I was completely unsatisfied with the previous one.

Why do you think some industries work fine without trade unions but others need them? Sorry if this has already been covered, I haven't followed the thread.

My BiL works in the Public Sector and is in the union.

I think that from the POV of the Government it is better to be able to deal with a single large organisation, largely because that's how Government works. Government is very bad at dealing with people on an individual level. Companies tend to deal with individuals because that's where their skills lie. The try to treat each customer as an individual and so treating other 'stakeholders' as individuals comes naturally.

Similarly unions only really gain any strength from representing large numbers at a time, representing individuals isn't really their shtick.

BobQ

mwpt wrote: »

I may be very naive but I have a question.

I've never had a job which was represented by a trade union. Perhaps I've been lucky but I've just worked hard and been satisfied with the trade of my service and time for money. I've moved jobs for more money but only because I wanted it, not because I was completely unsatisfied with the previous one.

Why do you think some industries work fine without trade unions but others need them? Sorry if this has already been covered, I haven't followed the thread.

As has been noted, many people regard belonging to a union as an insurance policy. Often they do not need help but if they suddenly find themselves unfairly dismissed or accused of say bullying a colleague or subject to disciplinary action having a union that you can turn to can be helpful.

Unions tend to survive in larger organisations, employers who recognise unions can see benefit in having a union to negotiate with or consult when there is a legal requirement to do so. Legally an employer has to have representatives of staff to consult on health and safety, having a union saves them creating a similar method of consultation.

But you are right you can manage without a union but you can also decide not to insure your house against fire and it will probably be OK.:)

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Simply not possible to dismiss people though if that's your inference. Employee still has the option of legal action as a last resort.

It is perfectly possible to dismiss anyone if you have a reason. But in law it is an unfair dismissal if you do not follow a fair process and it is automatically unfair if it is due to certain reasons. However, within the first two years of employment you do not have to give a reason and you cannot go to an Employment Tribunal. That used to be one year. What are you suggesting, that the average person would risk going to a higher court?

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

It is perfectly possible to dismiss anyone if you have a reason. But in law it is an unfair dismissal if you do not follow a fair process and it is automatically unfair if it is due to certain reasons. However, within the first two years of employment you do not have to give a reason and you cannot go to an Employment Tribunal. That used to be one year. What are you suggesting, that the average person would risk going to a higher court?

I'm merely rebutting your inference that Unions are indispensible. Given they are as politically driven today as they were some decades ago. I was once a Union Rep myself for what was the ASTMS . So been on the inside. In the public sector they appear to regard them selves as untouchable. Lazy !!!!!!s. That swan off to conferences etc using tax payers money. Give me a proper HR department any day. Or a Japanese style work council.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

...The other point that should be made is that any a union can have a political fund and make no party political donations. Trade Union law means that any action by a union (eg printing a poster) can be challenged in law if it appears to advocate support or opposition of a political party. ....

Yes. Unison, for example, has two political funds; a general fund for political campaigning and an affiliated fund which goes to the Labour Party. Members can pick which one their money goes into.

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'm merely rebutting your inference that Unions are indispensible. Given they are as politically driven today as they were some decades ago. I was once a Union Rep myself for what was the ASTMS . So been on the inside. In the public sector they appear to regard them selves as untouchable. Lazy !!!!!!s. That swan off to conferences etc using tax payers money. Give me a proper HR department any day. Or a Japanese style work council.

Well strictly it is you who has done the inferring, but I do not think my statement "Either way one day enough of them will realise that something like a trade union will be needed to campaign for the employment rights that used to exist" implied unions were indispensable.

You clearly had a bad experience 20 years or more ago. My experience is that unions do valuable work for their members on personal cases. Work Councils are an alternative but unless they are elected by the staff they represent they can easily been seen as equally unrepresentative as some see unions.

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'm merely rebutting your inference that Unions are indispensible. Given they are as politically driven today as they were some decades ago. I was once a Union Rep myself for what was the ASTMS . So been on the inside. In the public sector they appear to regard them selves as untouchable. Lazy !!!!!!s. That swan off to conferences etc using tax payers money. Give me a proper HR department any day. Or a Japanese style work council.

I can only speak for myself, but as someone in the public sector my near 30 year membership of a Union has been invaluable. In comparison to the private sector in many public sector roles the stakes can be incredibly high if you find yourself in need of Union representation. As someone else once said on here, not everyone packs punnets of fruit for a living.

CLAPTON

Tromking wrote: »

I can only speak for myself, but as someone in the public sector my near 30 year membership of a Union has been invaluable. In comparison to the private sector in many public sector roles the stakes can be incredibly high if you find yourself in need of Union representation. As someone else once said on here, not everyone packs punnets of fruit for a living.

maybe provide a few illustrations where union membership was invaluable to yourself.

Tromking

CLAPTON wrote: »

maybe provide a few illustrations where union membership was invaluable to yourself.

Why, do you think I`m lying?
A Coroners Court appearance and numerous disciplinary hearings as the accused or as a witness. The consequences of some of those could have involved dismissal and/or a jail sentence. As I said the stakes can be very high.