A Death By Eight Million Cuts

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

I don't think he said that. He said that "The activist narrative of heroic trade unionist fighting for social justice and that all workers benefits wouldn't be there but for the TUs, doesn't have a resonance with the majority of people today, especially the young"

.

He is right. So many people (particularly the younger generation) believe this is true. There are two interpretations of this.

One is that they could be right that modern employment laws provide all the protections they need and, combined with the benevolence of modern employers who always act fairly, they are just wasting their money subscribing.

The alternative is that their employment rights are being progressively undermined but their only solution is move jobs every few years or whenever they get treated unfairly.

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.

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

So the employers who do this see a benefit in having a union to consult with and negotiate with?

No.

In return for a guaranteed income stream the union agrees not to organise strikes and offers the employer cheaper labour.

The unions in construction in Aus are basically gangsters.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

He is right. So many people (particularly the younger generation) believe this is true. There are two interpretations of this.

One is that they could be right that modern employment laws provide all the protections they need and, combined with the benevolence of modern employers who always act fairly, they are just wasting their money subscribing.

The alternative is that their employment rights are being progressively undermined but their only solution is move jobs every few years or whenever they get treated unfairly.

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.

no they aren't the alternatives.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

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.

Never been more employment rights. Access to no fee lawyers. Employment tribunals.

Unions are from the dark ages in many respects. Politically driven. Not interested in representing their memberships own wishes. Hardly surprising the last bastions are in the main in the unmodernised workforces. The public sector.

N1AK

antrobus wrote: »

Besides, couldn't you just get members who've signed up to the levy to tick a box labelled Labour, or UKIP, or whatever? It's their money after all. Seems straightforward to me.:)

Yes, and you could do exactly the same thing with shareholders "It's there money after all" but you seem to oppose it in that case, even going as far as to call vastly different arrangements effectively analogous; if the arrangements are effectively the same, why not let Unions operate in the same way as businesses currently do?

antrobus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Never been more employment rights. Access to no fee lawyers. Employment tribunals. ....

It's much easier to exercise those rights, if you are in a union. It's like buying some insurance.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

...Unions are from the dark ages in many respects. Politically driven. Not interested in representing their memberships own wishes. Hardly surprising the last bastions are in the main in the unmodernised workforces. The public sector.

I would disagree. There are only14 unions affiliated to the Labour Party representing "almost 3 million members" - (http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/ ) and according to the Certification Officer there are some 134 listed unions representing 7 million members. So a majority of both unions and members have nothing to do with Labour.

There are only 25 unions with a political fund. Most trade unions are not political driven in the slightest, it's just that the handful that are, make a lot of noise about it.

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

Yes, and you could do exactly the same thing with shareholders "It's there money after all" but you seem to oppose it in that case, even going as far as to call vastly different arrangements effectively analogous; if the arrangements are effectively the same, why not let Unions operate in the same way as businesses currently do?

Your assumption is incorrect. I would have no objection to doing exactly the same thing with shareholders. But it would make no practical difference.

Publicly quoted companies do not make political donations. Most corporate donations are sourced from private companies controlled by one person.

For example; the Lib Dems received a chunck of money from Brompton Capital Ltd, which is owned by some Jersey vehicle, whose beneficial owner is a certain Rumi Verjee who made his money by getting the Domino's Pizza franchise for the UK. He is (probably together with some family trusts ) ultimately the shareholder in Brompton Capital Ltd.

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Never been more employment rights. Access to no fee lawyers. Employment tribunals.

.

I grant you that minimum employment rights in law have mostly got better but that does not mean that rights have not declined for employees in general as the influence of unions has declined.

When you say "Never been more employment rights" this does not mean rights cannot be lost.

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.

mwpt

BobQ wrote: »

He is right. So many people (particularly the younger generation) believe this is true. There are two interpretations of this.

One is that they could be right that modern employment laws provide all the protections they need and, combined with the benevolence of modern employers who always act fairly, they are just wasting their money subscribing.

The alternative is that their employment rights are being progressively undermined but their only solution is move jobs every few years or whenever they get treated unfairly.

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.

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.

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

It's much easier to exercise those rights, if you are in a union. It's like buying some insurance

Very true and many Conservative voting members of unions join for precisely that reason.

I would disagree. There are only14 unions affiliated to the Labour Party representing "almost 3 million members" - (http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/ ) and according to the Certification Officer there are some 134 listed unions representing 7 million members. So a majority of both unions and members have nothing to do with Labour.

There are only 25 unions with a political fund. Most trade unions are not political driven in the slightest, it's just that the handful that are, make a lot of noise about it.

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.

So in the present hospital doctors dispute the BMA (which has no political fund) has to tread very carefully. The NUT has a political fund but its constitution prevents it being used to fund a political party. In fact they only have it so that they can openly oppose racist and fascist candidates and their influence on education. Similarly Prospect is politically neutral but regards its political fund as an "insurance" so that they can lobby MPs and campaign on issues that affect its members (eg energy policy, science funding). It has to be called a political fund by law but really it is a campaign fund.