Working time / overtime paid or unpaid.

sangie595

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

No, as TELLIT stated above there is little point. Besides there seems to be a real reluctance to fund the Labour party among these British workers.

If they had half a brain, then they'd know that (a) they can opt out of the political levy, and (b) they pay a political levy to the Tory Party every day - where do you think the money that employers donate to the Tories comes from, the tooth fairy?

Look, here is a free introduction to how the world works. If they are too spineless to take on their own employer, what makes you think that someone or something else is going to do it for them? If they think that fair wages, social benefit, and looking after the vulnerable are too "lefty" for them, then fair enough. They have what they wanted, so they should suck it up. Life isn't fair. That's just how it is. If they want it to be fairer, it doesn't get that way on its own, and it doesn't get that way just for them.

savings_my_hobby

IAmWales wrote: »

So these "British workers" are too ignorant to help themselves?

How so? care to elaborate?

ohreally

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

No, as TELLIT stated above there is little point.

I'd be wary of taking union organising advice from an individual who worked in an organised workplace but refused to join a union while accepting union won terms of service.

sangie595

ohreally wrote: »

I'd be wary of taking union organising advice from an individual who worked in an organised workplace but refused to join a union while accepting union won terms of service.

I can't comment on that, but I can say that the advice is incorrect on a number of levels. In the first place, there is no dispute. "Whining in a back room" doesn't qualify as a dispute. I can guarantee that these workers have big happy smiles on their faces at work. They can even post on an anonymous website for themselves, so telling their employer they dispute their terms of employment isn't at all likely. Secondly, there is a difference between unions positions on individual and collective situations. On a individual basis, getting into trouble and then getting a union you joined after the event to intervene is unusual, for obvious reasons. Sometimes they might advise as a gesture of good will, and where there are lay reps that may be the case because it's easier. It often comes down to a question of union resource - we won't expend union resource (full time officials, legal advisors etc) for new members unless there is something in it for the union, such as a test case. That is simple economics.

However, on a collective basis the decision may be different. We often recruit amongst groups of workers who have approached us because they are fed up of the way their employer treats them. If this is not a unionised, or highly unionised, environment where employees didn't have the same chances to join a union, we would often make a very different judgement - if the workers are prepared to stand up for themselves, then we would usually help them to do that. The test would be, do they want to do things for themselves and need our help to organise; or do they expect us to come along and fix everything for them (which without their active participation, probably won't be possible).

In the end, I suspect it would be moot though - these workers sound like they wouldn't stand up for themselves, and the employer will pick those who do off one by one because as long as "I'm alright Jack" rules in a workplace, people will always be willing to sell their colleagues out to the employer in return for their own safety. If they really wanted to dispute this, they'd have done it.

Unions don't get their strength from the law. They get their strength from the members.

savings_my_hobby

sangie595 wrote: »

I can't comment on that, but I can say that the advice is incorrect on a number of levels. In the first place, there is no dispute. "Whining in a back room" doesn't qualify as a dispute. I can guarantee that these workers have big happy smiles on their faces at work. They can even post on an anonymous website for themselves, so telling their employer they dispute their terms of employment isn't at all likely. Secondly, there is a difference between unions positions on individual and collective situations. On a individual basis, getting into trouble and then getting a union you joined after the event to intervene is unusual, for obvious reasons. Sometimes they might advise as a gesture of good will, and where there are lay reps that may be the case because it's easier. It often comes down to a question of union resource - we won't expend union resource (full time officials, legal advisors etc) for new members unless there is something in it for the union, such as a test case. That is simple economics.

However, on a collective basis the decision may be different. We often recruit amongst groups of workers who have approached us because they are fed up of the way their employer treats them. If this is not a unionised, or highly unionised, environment where employees didn't have the same chances to join a union, we would often make a very different judgement - if the workers are prepared to stand up for themselves, then we would usually help them to do that. The test would be, do they want to do things for themselves and need our help to organise; or do they expect us to come along and fix everything for them (which without their active participation, probably won't be possible).

In the end, I suspect it would be moot though - these workers sound like they wouldn't stand up for themselves, and the employer will pick those who do off one by one because as long as "I'm alright Jack" rules in a workplace, people will always be willing to sell their colleagues out to the employer in return for their own safety. If they really wanted to dispute this, they'd have done it.

Unions don't get their strength from the law. They get their strength from the members.

From what I gather their concerns with unions are:
Doubtful Union have any real power and from their own previous experience have seen shop stewards getting too friendly with the management.

I myself have never been a member of a union and thankfully never had a dispute that could not be resolved from goodwill on both sides.

sangie595

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

From what I gather their concerns with unions are:
Doubtful Union have any real power and from their own previous experience have seen shop stewards getting too friendly with the management.

I myself have never been a member of a union and thankfully never had a dispute that could not be resolved from goodwill on both sides.

Excellent. So they are all getting paid for this time now?

savings_my_hobby

The last update I received from my friend states the company are now paying x 1.33 overtime rate for any time over the contracted hours and are taking a more relaxed view on route completion due to the fact the system implemented is not working has hoped.
So a win for the workers without forking out for a trades union.