Suspended from work

TELLIT01

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.

I was only ever a member of a union for a very short time towards the end of my working life and really saw the damage they did to industry in the country in the 70's and 80s.  However, I agree with happc84 that it would be crazy for a union to allow people to join only once they are in a situation where they need help.  The union need regular subscription to survive.  Allowing joining/leaving/joining/....... when somebody actually needed them would kill unions at a stroke.

Jillanddy

TELLIT01 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.

I was only ever a member of a union for a very short time towards the end of my working life and really saw the damage they did to industry in the country in the 70's and 80s.  However, I agree with happc84 that it would be crazy for a union to allow people to join only once they are in a situation where they need help.  The union need regular subscription to survive.  Allowing joining/leaving/joining/....... when somebody actually needed them would kill unions at a stroke.

As a lifelong union member and activist (who also recalls the 70's and 80's and would put the blame at the employers / Thatcher's / international capitalism and globalism's feet - not the unions that fought for their members employment rights and jobs) it isn't crazy at all. We don't allow people to join/leave/join/leave ad infinitum. That clearly would be silly. But we do allow people to join and obtain lay representation only when they need help. If they then leave our records would show that and they won't be allowed out do it again. But my actual experience is that few people do this. What is more common is that they remain union members and that often their colleagues, having seen the benefit of joining, also join. 

Slightly different scenario, but I recently went through an experience wherein I could have lost my job, as some people here know. Out of my team, despite my best efforts, only two people were in a union. A number of them were also at risk of losing their jobs. I now have a secure jobs thanks to my union - and a fully unionised team who also have jobs instead of redundancy. Sometimes it takes people realising what they are missing - everyone thinks it won't happen to them until it does.

mcpitman

Unions are a bit "old hat" now though aren't they?

They were present in the 70's and 80's, but due to the better protection for both employees and employers embedded in employment law, they just aren't required.

In my past I have seen unions involved in debates to a ridiculous level about silly things like the brand of coffee used in the office and the air fresheners used. I have been involved in many disciplinaries over the years and never once, ever, at all, in any way has "I'm going to the union" made a difference or influence to the outcome of the investigations and terminations of employment.

Unions have always seemed to be abrasive and non value adding in any involvement I have had and the businesses that did recognise unions merely tolerated them at best.

But then again, my main career has been in making private sector businesses and local governments work more efficiently, make more profit and grow for re-sale/re-finance so I suppose I am the Unions anti-christ in many ways. 

TELLIT01

Jillanddy said:

TELLIT01 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.

I was only ever a member of a union for a very short time towards the end of my working life and really saw the damage they did to industry in the country in the 70's and 80s.  However, I agree with happc84 that it would be crazy for a union to allow people to join only once they are in a situation where they need help.  The union need regular subscription to survive.  Allowing joining/leaving/joining/....... when somebody actually needed them would kill unions at a stroke.

As a lifelong union member and activist (who also recalls the 70's and 80's and would put the blame at the employers / Thatcher's / international capitalism and globalism's feet - not the unions that fought for their members employment rights and jobs) it isn't crazy at all. We don't allow people to join/leave/join/leave ad infinitum. That clearly would be silly. But we do allow people to join and obtain lay representation only when they need help. If they then leave our records would show that and they won't be allowed out do it again. But my actual experience is that few people do this. What is more common is that they remain union members and that often their colleagues, having seen the benefit of joining, also join. 

Slightly different scenario, but I recently went through an experience wherein I could have lost my job, as some people here know. Out of my team, despite my best efforts, only two people were in a union. A number of them were also at risk of losing their jobs. I now have a secure jobs thanks to my union - and a fully unionised team who also have jobs instead of redundancy. Sometimes it takes people realising what they are missing - everyone thinks it won't happen to them until it does.

I worked for an engineering company in the early 80s when the company offered the employees 15%.  The union rejected that and demanded 15 1/2%.  When the company refused the union took their members out for 3 weeks, before finally accepting the company offer.  That was probably the most ridiculous situation I came across with unions, and just another reason I always avoided them.  At that time the shop stewards still got full pay from the union so they didn't lose 3 weeks pay either!  Thankfully I wasn't involved in that fiasco.

ElefantEd

mcpitman said:

Unions are a bit "old hat" now though aren't they?

They were present in the 70's and 80's, but due to the better protection for both employees and employers embedded in employment law, they just aren't required.

Tell that to P&O employees.

MattMattMattUK

ElefantEd said:

mcpitman said:

Unions are a bit "old hat" now though aren't they?

They were present in the 70's and 80's, but due to the better protection for both employees and employers embedded in employment law, they just aren't required.

Tell that to P&O employees.

Being part of a union has not done them any good either though. The problem is international maritime law which is very difficult to change, especially as the countries where many of the workers come from are quite reliant on the remittances from those working on the ships. 

Edit to add: 
Some unions are good, work constructively with employers and are good for everyone, others are petulant, childish and ultimately result in the jobs being cut back dramatically and offshored, or being automated. I had family members who worked in heavily unionised industries, my father in print where the unions opposed the introduction of modern printing techniques for decades on the basis that modern technology resulted a need for fewer printers, the union then stated that they would not oppose the new technology provided the company agreed to maintain previous staffing levels. Ultimately this resulted in the company shutting down their entire operations and shipping in the books from abroad, about 25 years later when the union was dead the production was brought back to the UK, with the correct level of staffing. The union's actions cost everyone their jobs, not just printers, but packers, warehouse workers, UK support staff etc. rather than just the surplus printers. I had relatives who worked in marine engineering and the unions destroyed that industry as well, my relatives ended up working in Germany and South Korea where the unions were cooperative rather than competitive. I also had a relative who quit the RMT after the union started strike action because a train driver was sacked for turning up paralytically drunk five times. At the same time I also have friends who work in medicine and as a pilot and those unions seem eminently sensible, but it does very much depend on the kind of union, some are grown up, others are still very childish. 

happyc84

perhaps we can get back on track, how is the OP doing?

Jillanddy

mcpitman said:

Unions are a bit "old hat" now though aren't they?

They were present in the 70's and 80's, but due to the better protection for both employees and employers embedded in employment law, they just aren't required.

In my past I have seen unions involved in debates to a ridiculous level about silly things like the brand of coffee used in the office and the air fresheners used. I have been involved in many disciplinaries over the years and never once, ever, at all, in any way has "I'm going to the union" made a difference or influence to the outcome of the investigations and terminations of employment.

Unions have always seemed to be abrasive and non value adding in any involvement I have had and the businesses that did recognise unions merely tolerated them at best.

But then again, my main career has been in making private sector businesses and local governments work more efficiently, make more profit and grow for re-sale/re-finance so I suppose I am the Unions anti-christ in many ways. 

Well, given that if my employer had had their way I would be unemployed right now, and as a disabled older person the chances of me ever working again (even with great skills and qualifications) would be very low. And my team would no longer exist, with several losing their jobs and the rest dispersed across services. So it certainly made a difference to us, and not remotely old hat at all. If you think that better protection for employees is embedded in employment law then you have little understanding of employment law. 

 And just to point out that losing my team would have cost the employer MORE in redundancy than it saved, and my team GENERATES massive amounts of income - I am talking £millions - and generates huge new service activity which benefits local people in the poorest neighbourhoods. Someone called that idea "efficiency" too, so I am not impressed by claims that you think efficiency means that there is more "profit" or growth. That suggests that you are as narrow minded in your approach as you claim some unions are.

And yes, we did once have lengthy discussions with an employer about coffee - which resulted in the development of a policy that supported sustainable development and fair trade. What you view as silly discussions can have life changing impacts for many people. Not everything in life should be about making money - whether that is employees or employers. Sometimes, it should be about doing the right thing.

Now I must get off because I am off to have a "silly" discussion about how we support Ukrainian refugees - not a profit in sight.

mcpitman

Jillanddy said:

mcpitman said:

Unions are a bit "old hat" now though aren't they?

They were present in the 70's and 80's, but due to the better protection for both employees and employers embedded in employment law, they just aren't required.

In my past I have seen unions involved in debates to a ridiculous level about silly things like the brand of coffee used in the office and the air fresheners used. I have been involved in many disciplinaries over the years and never once, ever, at all, in any way has "I'm going to the union" made a difference or influence to the outcome of the investigations and terminations of employment.

Unions have always seemed to be abrasive and non value adding in any involvement I have had and the businesses that did recognise unions merely tolerated them at best.

But then again, my main career has been in making private sector businesses and local governments work more efficiently, make more profit and grow for re-sale/re-finance so I suppose I am the Unions anti-christ in many ways. 

Well, given that if my employer had had their way I would be unemployed right now, and as a disabled older person the chances of me ever working again (even with great skills and qualifications) would be very low. And my team would no longer exist, with several losing their jobs and the rest dispersed across services. So it certainly made a difference to us, and not remotely old hat at all. If you think that better protection for employees is embedded in employment law then you have little understanding of employment law. 

 And just to point out that losing my team would have cost the employer MORE in redundancy than it saved, and my team GENERATES massive amounts of income - I am talking £millions - and generates huge new service activity which benefits local people in the poorest neighbourhoods. Someone called that idea "efficiency" too, so I am not impressed by claims that you think efficiency means that there is more "profit" or growth. That suggests that you are as narrow minded in your approach as you claim some unions are.

And yes, we did once have lengthy discussions with an employer about coffee - which resulted in the development of a policy that supported sustainable development and fair trade. What you view as silly discussions can have life changing impacts for many people. Not everything in life should be about making money - whether that is employees or employers. Sometimes, it should be about doing the right thing.

Now I must get off because I am off to have a "silly" discussion about how we support Ukrainian refugees - not a profit in sight.

Please re-write the above removing the personal attacks. You appear to descend into extreme examples and insulting language when someone puta a point of view across that differs to yours.

Your final sentence, is so unbelievably ignorant to my personal home situation currently (and general view of the world) I cannot possibly interact with you any longer on this subject. Absolutely abhorrent statement to make.

Slava Ukraini.

lincroft1710

mcpitman said:

Jillanddy said:

mcpitman said:

Unions are a bit "old hat" now though aren't they?

They were present in the 70's and 80's, but due to the better protection for both employees and employers embedded in employment law, they just aren't required.

In my past I have seen unions involved in debates to a ridiculous level about silly things like the brand of coffee used in the office and the air fresheners used. I have been involved in many disciplinaries over the years and never once, ever, at all, in any way has "I'm going to the union" made a difference or influence to the outcome of the investigations and terminations of employment.

Unions have always seemed to be abrasive and non value adding in any involvement I have had and the businesses that did recognise unions merely tolerated them at best.

But then again, my main career has been in making private sector businesses and local governments work more efficiently, make more profit and grow for re-sale/re-finance so I suppose I am the Unions anti-christ in many ways. 

Well, given that if my employer had had their way I would be unemployed right now, and as a disabled older person the chances of me ever working again (even with great skills and qualifications) would be very low. And my team would no longer exist, with several losing their jobs and the rest dispersed across services. So it certainly made a difference to us, and not remotely old hat at all. If you think that better protection for employees is embedded in employment law then you have little understanding of employment law. 

 And just to point out that losing my team would have cost the employer MORE in redundancy than it saved, and my team GENERATES massive amounts of income - I am talking £millions - and generates huge new service activity which benefits local people in the poorest neighbourhoods. Someone called that idea "efficiency" too, so I am not impressed by claims that you think efficiency means that there is more "profit" or growth. That suggests that you are as narrow minded in your approach as you claim some unions are.

And yes, we did once have lengthy discussions with an employer about coffee - which resulted in the development of a policy that supported sustainable development and fair trade. What you view as silly discussions can have life changing impacts for many people. Not everything in life should be about making money - whether that is employees or employers. Sometimes, it should be about doing the right thing.

Now I must get off because I am off to have a "silly" discussion about how we support Ukrainian refugees - not a profit in sight.

Please re-write the above removing the personal attacks. You appear to descend into extreme examples and insulting language when someone puta a point of view across that differs to yours.

Your final sentence, is so unbelievably ignorant to my personal home situation currently (and general view of the world) I cannot possibly interact with you any longer on this subject. Absolutely abhorrent statement to make.

Slava Ukraini.

I think you will find that Jill's final sentence was tongue-in-cheek!