Class action against Unite Union

KEV25

deannatrois wrote: »

Hopefully the OP was looking for a rant rather than actually carrying out any action, which would be extremely difficult. When one person is accusing someone/something else of selfishness, I always wonder if they have heard the 'pot kettle black' saying. Does the OP know anything about why the strike has been called, do they not realise that these people must feel very strongly to lose wages to make their point?

Having worked for several employers who ride rough shod over employees I very much regret the lack of power Unions have, inspite of having lived through the days when it seemed like every week we had days without electricity, bread etc. That was getting stupid, but now, its not the same situation.

The reason is irrelevant to me as, as others have stated on here, I have no contract with a union at all. Why should I care if someone doesn't think they're getting enough tea breaks or if they want more time off? The facts are, a unions way of getting back at a company is to get at its customers. Which should be illegal. Your comment about worked for employers who 'shod over' employees is irrelevant, if your'e not happy with your working conditions deal with it, just don't impact me or others, it's extremely selfish. If you're too weak to prove why you're worth paying for by a big company that's your issue but blackmailing them into giving you what you want by targeting the public is moronic and shortsighted. I know it's sad that 'sometimes we had no bread' but your solution appears to be, to prevent many thousands of others from getting bread until your employer submits and gives you what you want. Crazy idea but... companies really value people who are really good at their job, not those who take the day off to get paid more.

Twopints

Well done you. So what have you done about it?

martindow

KEV25 wrote: »

Companies have a legal obligation to pay employees when they take a day or two off work (strike)

I don't think so. I was certainly docked pay when I was on strike for a couple of afternoons. The county council didn't pay a proportion of that month's salary.

bingo_bango

Never paid me for strike days either. Also make it clear that strike days do not count towards my pension so each strike day means I need to work an extra day before collecting my pension.

But my favourite part is this bit:

KEV25 wrote:

Why should I care if someone doesn't think they're getting enough tea breaks or if they want more time off? The facts are, a unions way of getting back at a company is to get at its customers. Which should be illegal. Your comment about worked for employers who 'shod over' employees is irrelevant, if your'e not happy with your working conditions deal with it, just don't impact me or others, it's extremely selfish.

And still thinks he is going to elicit sympathy :rotfl:

lincroft1710

martindow wrote: »

I don't think so. I was certainly docked pay when I was on strike for a couple of afternoons. The county council didn't pay a proportion of that month's salary.

I thought OP was talking rubbish but then a thought occurred. Does he mean that companies are obliged to pay employees who are prevented from attending their work place due to strike action by others.

I still think he's on to a loser

Comms69

KEV25 wrote: »

I don't have one, but then you don't need one to sue someone... That's the whole point of the post, people who use public transport are being negatively impacted by a organisation that they have no relationship with. Would you let a company park their delivery van in front of your house every day, preventing you from getting to work? I assume you'd have to, as there's nothing you could do... you have no contract with them

Parking across a dropped kerb is a criminal offence.


Your argument just failed.


You can sue for a number of reasons, but unfortunately you cannot sue for someone exercising a legal right.

Comms69

KEV25 wrote: »

The reason is irrelevant to me as, as others have stated on here, I have no contract with a union at all. Why should I care if someone doesn't think they're getting enough tea breaks or if they want more time off? The facts are, a unions way of getting back at a company is to get at its customers. Which should be illegal. Your comment about worked for employers who 'shod over' employees is irrelevant, if your'e not happy with your working conditions deal with it, just don't impact me or others, it's extremely selfish. If you're too weak to prove why you're worth paying for by a big company that's your issue but blackmailing them into giving you what you want by targeting the public is moronic and shortsighted. I know it's sad that 'sometimes we had no bread' but your solution appears to be, to prevent many thousands of others from getting bread until your employer submits and gives you what you want. Crazy idea but... companies really value people who are really good at their job, not those who take the day off to get paid more.

But it isn't illegal.

sangie595

Speaking as a UNITE official, I am absolutely delighted that Kev is wishing to bankrupt himself in a hopeless cause. Kev, I am not sure that you have understood the point of employment. Nobody can be forced to attend work. Forcing people to attend work is slavery, not employment.

As for denying you the right to travel to work, I suggest you do as Norman Tebbit suggested and get on your bike. It is not my members responsibility to get you to work - it's yours.

And if you were worth half as much as you appear to think you are, then your employer wouldn't care whether you attended or not. Sitting in a fixed workplace is not the limit of working. If your employer expects otherwise, then you really aren't as important to them as you think. But I guess we already knew that...

UNITE union doesn't represent itself. It isn't an organism. It is 1.5 MILLION people. And when we go on strike, believe me, THAT is a class action!!!