Suspended from work

Jillanddy

arctic_ghost said:

Or the members will cut the proverbial nuts of the steward, taking the view why should we pay branch dues every week for non members to receive support for the asking and a few quids worth of retrospective subs.

I've seen stewards deselected,and worse, for this (H&S issues excepted).

I don't recall anyone suggesting that non-members should get representation. Once they join, they are members. They may not be eligible for legal resource, but lay representation doesn't incur cost to the union, and as I said, successful defence can lead to recruitment which makes the union stronger. Of course it is possible that some unions or sections of unions take a "legalistic" and hidebound approach to recruitment. Others do not. Mine certainly doesn't. If our members expressed such a view we would point out to them that every non-union member in the workplace makes us weaker, and that every action we take to reduce that non-union membership is a step in the right direction.

Not all union stewards have nuts either. There is a long and proud history of "nut-less" union activists. 

[Deleted User]

Jillanddy said:

arctic_ghost said:

Or the members will cut the proverbial nuts of the steward, taking the view why should we pay branch dues every week for non members to receive support for the asking and a few quids worth of retrospective subs.

I've seen stewards deselected,and worse, for this (H&S issues excepted).

I don't recall anyone suggesting that non-members should get representation. Once they join, they are members. They may not be eligible for legal resource, but lay representation doesn't incur cost to the union, and as I said, successful defence can lead to recruitment which makes the union stronger. Of course it is possible that some unions or sections of unions take a "legalistic" and hidebound approach to recruitment. Others do not. Mine certainly doesn't. If our members expressed such a view we would point out to them that every non-union member in the workplace makes us weaker, and that every action we take to reduce that non-union membership is a step in the right direction.

Not all union stewards have nuts either. There is a long and proud history of "nut-less" union activists. 

I didn't refer to non-members getting representation. Individuals seeking representation by joining (with perhaps paying the branch an element of arrears) with pre-existing issues, yes on joining they are members, I haven't attempted to suggest that wasn't the case and I did not imply recourse to rule book benefits.
I stated "proverbial nuts", if you wish to insert some sort of implication into that comment to fit your own agenda carry on however I won't be contributing as I feel I was clear.

Undervalued

Jillanddy said:

arctic_ghost said:

Or the members will cut the proverbial nuts of the steward, taking the view why should we pay branch dues every week for non members to receive support for the asking and a few quids worth of retrospective subs.

I've seen stewards deselected,and worse, for this (H&S issues excepted).

Not all union stewards have nuts either. There is a long and proud history of "nut-less" union activists. 

To be fair to arctic_ghost, the nuts were proverbial rather than a physical requirement for the role!

Southend_2

OP, maybe now is a good time to join an appropriate union so that you have support and representation if anything like this happens in future 

happyc84

As an ex TU rep, I would not support any retrospective application to join a TU for events that happened in the past.
why because it weakens the case for TU membership, too many people think they don't need one until it is too late. Tough you made your choice by not joining earlier. (Not directed at the OP as they have not suggested they wish to join).

bartelbe

happyc84 said:

As an ex TU rep, I would not support any retrospective application to join a TU for events that happened in the past.
why because it weakens the case for TU membership, too many people think they don't need one until it is too late. Tough you made your choice by not joining earlier. (Not directed at the OP as they have not suggested they wish to join).

That is the sort of attitude which is killing the union movement.

Undervalued

bartelbe said:

happyc84 said:

As an ex TU rep, I would not support any retrospective application to join a TU for events that happened in the past.
why because it weakens the case for TU membership, too many people think they don't need one until it is too late. Tough you made your choice by not joining earlier. (Not directed at the OP as they have not suggested they wish to join).

That is the sort of attitude which is killing the union movement.

Well, if your house burns down an insurance company will only pay out if you purchased a policy beforehand. How is this any different?

Jillanddy

Undervalued said:

bartelbe said:

happyc84 said:

As an ex TU rep, I would not support any retrospective application to join a TU for events that happened in the past.
why because it weakens the case for TU membership, too many people think they don't need one until it is too late. Tough you made your choice by not joining earlier. (Not directed at the OP as they have not suggested they wish to join).

That is the sort of attitude which is killing the union movement.

Well, if your house burns down an insurance company will only pay out if you purchased a policy beforehand. How is this any different?

Because insurers hate paying out even if you have insurance before the fire, and will do anything to get out of paying up? Because unions are not in the business to make a profit?

I do agree to an extent, but there are differences. As I previously suggested, it is one thing to refuse to spend union resource on people who only join once they are in trouble. The rules about membership are there to prevent that from happening and I agree with them. But lay representation costs the union nothing, and if local reps see value in terms of recruitment in spending their time helping or advising someone who has just joined, that is generally up to them to decide. In my union we would commonly approach things this way - if the person leaves again then we have lost nothing but a bit of lay time that was there anyway. But more often than not we gain at least one member and often many more.

If trade unions, historically, had only done things for people already members, there would be no unions at all. Insurers won't go bust if people don't buy insurance - no matter how short-sighted that decision may be. Just look at the numbers who have no household or travel insurance in place. ABTA suggest that 22% of travellers aboard have no insurance, and 27% of those insured had "the wrong level of insurance". Other research suggest that 16 million people have no contents insurance - 60% of low earners. That hasn't had any noticeable impact on the profit lines of insurance companies. When a workplace isn't unionised, when it's members are weak, then the union has less resources and loses its collective power. So actually, very different. What gets people to join the union makes us all stronger - I can't say that about my insurance policies.

Undervalued

Jillanddy said:

Undervalued said:

bartelbe said:

happyc84 said:

As an ex TU rep, I would not support any retrospective application to join a TU for events that happened in the past.
why because it weakens the case for TU membership, too many people think they don't need one until it is too late. Tough you made your choice by not joining earlier. (Not directed at the OP as they have not suggested they wish to join).

That is the sort of attitude which is killing the union movement.

Well, if your house burns down an insurance company will only pay out if you purchased a policy beforehand. How is this any different?

Because insurers hate paying out even if you have insurance before the fire, and will do anything to get out of paying up? Because unions are not in the business to make a profit?

I do agree to an extent, but there are differences. As I previously suggested, it is one thing to refuse to spend union resource on people who only join once they are in trouble. The rules about membership are there to prevent that from happening and I agree with them. But lay representation costs the union nothing, and if local reps see value in terms of recruitment in spending their time helping or advising someone who has just joined, that is generally up to them to decide. In my union we would commonly approach things this way - if the person leaves again then we have lost nothing but a bit of lay time that was there anyway. But more often than not we gain at least one member and often many more.

If trade unions, historically, had only done things for people already members, there would be no unions at all. Insurers won't go bust if people don't buy insurance - no matter how short-sighted that decision may be. Just look at the numbers who have no household or travel insurance in place. ABTA suggest that 22% of travellers aboard have no insurance, and 27% of those insured had "the wrong level of insurance". Other research suggest that 16 million people have no contents insurance - 60% of low earners. That hasn't had any noticeable impact on the profit lines of insurance companies. When a workplace isn't unionised, when it's members are weak, then the union has less resources and loses its collective power. So actually, very different. What gets people to join the union makes us all stronger - I can't say that about my insurance policies.

It must have done. Assuming they are making a profit out of selling a particular type of insurance, surely more customers buying the product  should lead to a proportionally bigger profit?

Jillanddy

Undervalued said:

Jillanddy said:

Undervalued said:

bartelbe said:

happyc84 said:

As an ex TU rep, I would not support any retrospective application to join a TU for events that happened in the past.
why because it weakens the case for TU membership, too many people think they don't need one until it is too late. Tough you made your choice by not joining earlier. (Not directed at the OP as they have not suggested they wish to join).

That is the sort of attitude which is killing the union movement.

Well, if your house burns down an insurance company will only pay out if you purchased a policy beforehand. How is this any different?

Because insurers hate paying out even if you have insurance before the fire, and will do anything to get out of paying up? Because unions are not in the business to make a profit?

I do agree to an extent, but there are differences. As I previously suggested, it is one thing to refuse to spend union resource on people who only join once they are in trouble. The rules about membership are there to prevent that from happening and I agree with them. But lay representation costs the union nothing, and if local reps see value in terms of recruitment in spending their time helping or advising someone who has just joined, that is generally up to them to decide. In my union we would commonly approach things this way - if the person leaves again then we have lost nothing but a bit of lay time that was there anyway. But more often than not we gain at least one member and often many more.

If trade unions, historically, had only done things for people already members, there would be no unions at all. Insurers won't go bust if people don't buy insurance - no matter how short-sighted that decision may be. Just look at the numbers who have no household or travel insurance in place. ABTA suggest that 22% of travellers aboard have no insurance, and 27% of those insured had "the wrong level of insurance". Other research suggest that 16 million people have no contents insurance - 60% of low earners. That hasn't had any noticeable impact on the profit lines of insurance companies. When a workplace isn't unionised, when it's members are weak, then the union has less resources and loses its collective power. So actually, very different. What gets people to join the union makes us all stronger - I can't say that about my insurance policies.

It must have done. Assuming they are making a profit out of selling a particular type of insurance, surely more customers buying the product  should lead to a proportionally bigger profit?

I think you are missing my point, but since there is no suggestion those people without insurance ever bought insurance, then there has been no impact on the profit that the companies have always made. Yes, if more people had bought insurance then the future profits would increase. Just as if more people join the union their membership and effectiveness increase. Those are future actions. More members improves the position for all union members. More people buying insurance does nothing for everyone else buying insurance.