is it worth joining a union?

sangie595

elsien wrote: »

I've always had good relationships with my employer. Doesn't mean I d trust them to do the right thing in a TUPE, disciplinary or redundancy situation though.

I was given poor advice when I needed it because the union rep was very focussed on public sector rights and couldn't get his head round things being different in the voluntary sector. So I left. Always felt like the poor relation in a non unionised workplace. Not helped by infighting in the union about new community branches. Couldn't be doing with the politics of it all.

Having said that, when facing another potentially TUPE I decided it was still better to have the resources of a large organisation trying to fight my corner than having to do it alone. So unless they do something really silly, now I'm back in I'll be staying a member.

I don't know which union you are in, but as a general piece of advice.... My union also had third sector members, huge numbers of them. So it may be the union you are in. We (and some of our colleagues) do have a specialised section for third sector workers. I totally agree with you - although I do work with public sector, I also handle third sector and started out working in that sector (and was a founder member of the section, decades ago) - many of my colleagues don't get it. And why would they? I'd be sc**wed if asked to represent a plumber! I know nothing about them!

Find out whether your union has a sector specific section. They probably do. And get your representation from them and the officers supporting them. They'll know who is good. Public sector reps have good intentions and want to help, but they really don't understand just how very different the third sector is. I get why. On the face of it there are huge similarities. But they really aren't many. You need a specialist, just as anyone else would. The law may be the same. But the negotiating skills require a different mindset.

ReadingTim

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

So it seems to me all the cards are stacked in favour of the employer. Doesn't seem right to me...

I'm not so sure. The union movement was born in a time when workers had no rights, and employers had no responsibilities. Workers realised that collective bargaining was more effective than individual bargaining, including the threat to withdraw their labour. That the union movement has been fundamental in ensuring that nowadays employees do have rights, and employers have responsibilities cannot be denied.

I think the challenge is that the union movement seems rooted in the past; determined to perpetuate an "us vs them" mentality and class struggle, whilst being as nakedly self-interested and self-serving as the employers they oppose so aggressively. But for many people today, they're simply irrelevant.

The big "battles" have been fought and won - compare the UK to working practises in China, Bangladesh, the middle east etc now, or the UK 200 years ago and we're worlds apart. Whatever the new battlegrounds are, the union movement doesn't seem to have identified them, or recruited troops for the next skirmish.

Furthermore, the likes of the gig economy and zero hours contracts make it seem like we're returning to the Victorian era, when the 'need' for unions was at its strongest. Yet they don't seem to have mobilised supporters this time around. Why is this?

scd3scd4

I see no point in commenting on how Unions use to behave. Any more than how some companies use to behave to their workers.


I am a Union rep and we have collective bargaining. It works. We have a decent relationship with the company and for the most part we are treated well with good T&C that have been negotiated. Its my company at the end of the day and I want it to be successful. This is an example of how I behave......


Lad is asked to stay behind for 25-30 minutes to finish a job. Moans to me. I remind him he asked to go early the other month. The company said yes and still paid him! Now what does he want to do!


Members meet and then ask the reps to represent them with the company for pay deals, T&C changes and so on. If you are not in our Union then you do not have a say. The company does not negotiate with non Union member separately. They just get the same us the rest.


Ohh and I would not represent someone after any event if they are not members. We are not here to be used while you save your subs.

scd3scd4

bugslet wrote: »

However, if I joined a place with a heavy union membership, what would I do - hell would freeze over before I joined one. I'd be happy to negotiate my own Ts & Cs, but I doubt management would want to.:)

.

You will be doing nothing of the sort where I work. The management would not meet you and Union members would decide for you. lol

Wayne_O_Mac

For all that I think the anti-union sentiment here is self-centred and foolish, at least they're not scabs.

greenorange

I work in the public sector and have been in my job for less than 2 years, so I assume joining a union would be pointless, as my employer could sack me without a reason right now anyway...

bugslet

scd3scd4 wrote: »

You will be doing nothing of the sort where I work. The management would not meet you and Union members would decide for you. lol

That was exactly my point!

As I pointed out later in the thread, I don't want to be negotiating individually with my employees.

Manxman_in_exile

ReadingTim wrote: »

I'm not so sure. The union movement was born in a time when workers had no rights, and employers had no responsibilities. Workers realised that collective bargaining was more effective than individual bargaining, including the threat to withdraw their labour. That the union movement has been fundamental in ensuring that nowadays employees do have rights, and employers have responsibilities cannot be denied.

I think the challenge is that the union movement seems rooted in the past; determined to perpetuate an "us vs them" mentality and class struggle, whilst being as nakedly self-interested and self-serving as the employers they oppose so aggressively. But for many people today, they're simply irrelevant.

The big "battles" have been fought and won - compare the UK to working practises in China, Bangladesh, the middle east etc now, or the UK 200 years ago and we're worlds apart. Whatever the new battlegrounds are, the union movement doesn't seem to have identified them, or recruited troops for the next skirmish.

Furthermore, the likes of the gig economy and zero hours contracts make it seem like we're returning to the Victorian era, when the 'need' for unions was at its strongest. Yet they don't seem to have mobilised supporters this time around. Why is this?

I agree with your general point.


gig economy and zero hours workers are at a total disadvantage but they aren't in a position to protect themselves.


Ironically the Op is not happy with what unions "do" , but would want to benefit from being a member but doesn't want the "costs" of being a member.

Stylehutz

Cant think why anyone wouldnt want to join a Union. Would put it on a par with someone being a conscientious objecter. Not wanting to fight for your country but expecting others to do so, so your country can be free.

sangie595

Stylehutz wrote: »

Cant think why anyone wouldnt want to join a Union. Would put it on a par with someone being a conscientious objecter. Not wanting to fight for your country but expecting others to do so, so your country can be free.

Not being a pacifist myself, but... This is not what conscientious objectors do or believe. They believe that violence - all violence, from any perspective - is wrong and not the way to settle disputes. They do not expect others to fight their battles, or to defend their freedom. And a great many concientious objectors, around the world, refuse to fight or otherwise take part in oppression and violence at great cost to themselves. As did those who objected to WW1 and WW2 in the UK. What, you didn't really think that conscientious objectors were just cowards from the UK who refused to fight, did you? There were objectors in Germany too, in the world wars. There are still objectors today, who refuse to participate in the oppression of or violence against people in their own and other countries. Whether you agree with them or not, your comments demonstrates an ignorance of the bravery it takes to oppose the "order", and to face the consequences of that refusal. If there had been more conscientious objectors in Germany in the 1930s we may not have faced another war.

BTW refusing to fight is not the same thing as not opposing - many conscientious objectors are, and have been, are the forefront of peaceful protest, often in the face of a state that does not operate peacefully.