Jump to content

Are you a member of a union?


Dmacca

Recommended Posts

Is it all unions that are going to strike? I am a member of one but can't even remember what union i am in! That is how much notice I take. I did hear someone saying something today about possible balloting to strike so I guess I would be involved.

I actually am not that bothered either way, I will just go with the flow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in Unison when I worked in Glasgow City Council, went on strike twice during that time for pension rights if I remember correctly.

Not in one anymore now that im back in Inverness and working in a completely different line of work. My old man is the boss anyway and there are only 3 employees so not much call for a union!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in a union but will not be striking. The "right" to strike is something that should be used as a last resort and is appropriate where there are more specific issues directly related to a persons employment and where management are being unreasonable. In my view it is an abuse to use the right to strike just because you don't like the way the Government is handling the national economy.

Strike action will do nothing to help the economy and will only cause loads of irritation to others and impact on the most vulnerable in our society. It is ironic that these calls for strike action should be made on the same day a serious increase in the unemployment figures was announced. Those calling for strike action should count themselves lucky they have got a job and if they don't want to do it then how about giving it up and letting those without one do it instead.

And by just what "right" do the unions think they can have a ballot of their members and then impose misery on everybody else? They may not like the result of the last election but they should respect the outcome because all the nation had the opportunity to vote in that. Of course, they have every right to show their dissatisfaction with the actions of this Government but the way to do that is to protest, and argue the case. If that doesn't prompt the Government to change policy then argue the case for an alternative approach at the next election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in a union but will not be striking. The "right" to strike is something that should be used as a last resort and is appropriate where there are more specific issues directly related to a persons employment and where management are being unreasonable. In my view it is an abuse to use the right to strike just because you don't like the way the Government is handling the national economy.

Strike action will do nothing to help the economy and will only cause loads of irritation to others and impact on the most vulnerable in our society. It is ironic that these calls for strike action should be made on the same day a serious increase in the unemployment figures was announced. Those calling for strike action should count themselves lucky they have got a job and if they don't want to do it then how about giving it up and letting those without one do it instead.

And by just what "right" do the unions think they can have a ballot of their members and then impose misery on everybody else? They may not like the result of the last election but they should respect the outcome because all the nation had the opportunity to vote in that. Of course, they have every right to show their dissatisfaction with the actions of this Government but the way to do that is to protest, and argue the case. If that doesn't prompt the Government to change policy then argue the case for an alternative approach at the next election.

I take it your pension is safe?

My own was increased a couple of years back from 4.5% to 6% to maintain the same final salary pension and my employers are going through a consultation process to increase that to 8% of my salary from January. We don't have the union at my work but many of our colleagues are members and I'd probably strike if directed to. Our working terms and conditions have deteriorated over the last few years and there has to come a point where the employer is shocked into listening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in a union but will not be striking. The "right" to strike is something that should be used as a last resort and is appropriate where there are more specific issues directly related to a persons employment and where management are being unreasonable. In my view it is an abuse to use the right to strike just because you don't like the way the Government is handling the national economy.

Strike action will do nothing to help the economy and will only cause loads of irritation to others and impact on the most vulnerable in our society. It is ironic that these calls for strike action should be made on the same day a serious increase in the unemployment figures was announced. Those calling for strike action should count themselves lucky they have got a job and if they don't want to do it then how about giving it up and letting those without one do it instead.

And by just what "right" do the unions think they can have a ballot of their members and then impose misery on everybody else? They may not like the result of the last election but they should respect the outcome because all the nation had the opportunity to vote in that. Of course, they have every right to show their dissatisfaction with the actions of this Government but the way to do that is to protest, and argue the case. If that doesn't prompt the Government to change policy then argue the case for an alternative approach at the next election.

Then resign from your union, why should you pick and chose benifits from the union but decide to scab any industrial action, which you are correct is a last resort, aimed at protecting the rights of you and your fellow workers?

If you are so anti-strike then get on your soapbox and make your point, perhaps you can dissaude the membership from taking action, if not either resign your membership or support your union in the same way they would support you.

A members ballot is just that, a ballot, a method of deciding on action taken by the union by asking it's membership what action they would like to take. You have the right to vote no to any action, just as the Union leadership who were elected by yourself and the rest of your collegues have the right to ask for the opinion of their membership. It's called democracy, it's the greatest thing to happen to the civilised world.

Edited by marks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can strike if they wish, but it will achieve absolutely nothing positive.

Not because their actions won't be listened to or gain any attention, but because there's little (if anything) that can be done to improve the situation in the current economic climate...certainly not without making cuts elsewhere.

It doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean people are not justified in being angry and upset, but you can hold a gun to someone's head and demand all you want, if they don't have it, they can't give it to you.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can strike if they wish, but it will achieve absolutely nothing positive.

Not because their actions won't be listened to or gain any attention, but because there's little (if anything) that can be done to improve the situation in the current economic climate...certainly not without making cuts elsewhere.

It doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean people are not justified in being angry and upset, but you can hold a gun to someone's head and demand all you want, if they don't have it, they can't give it to you.

This is correct and this is what the union leadership need to understand, this is what employers need to convince unions, who are looking at strike action, is the case and broker deals to achieve a solution which suits all. Reinstatement of conditions when things improve should be a carrot offered to the unions because, if not, the employers will not be too quick to reinstate any rights which have been lost by the workforce. The global economy is up sh*t street at the moment but the workforce should not be subjected to permanent downgrading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in a union but will not be striking. The "right" to strike is something that should be used as a last resort and is appropriate where there are more specific issues directly related to a persons employment and where management are being unreasonable. In my view it is an abuse to use the right to strike just because you don't like the way the Government is handling the national economy.

Strike action will do nothing to help the economy and will only cause loads of irritation to others and impact on the most vulnerable in our society. It is ironic that these calls for strike action should be made on the same day a serious increase in the unemployment figures was announced. Those calling for strike action should count themselves lucky they have got a job and if they don't want to do it then how about giving it up and letting those without one do it instead.

And by just what "right" do the unions think they can have a ballot of their members and then impose misery on everybody else? They may not like the result of the last election but they should respect the outcome because all the nation had the opportunity to vote in that. Of course, they have every right to show their dissatisfaction with the actions of this Government but the way to do that is to protest, and argue the case. If that doesn't prompt the Government to change policy then argue the case for an alternative approach at the next election.

I take it your pension is safe?

My own was increased a couple of years back from 4.5% to 6% to maintain the same final salary pension and my employers are going through a consultation process to increase that to 8% of my salary from January. We don't have the union at my work but many of our colleagues are members and I'd probably strike if directed to. Our working terms and conditions have deteriorated over the last few years and there has to come a point where the employer is shocked into listening.

If your work doesn't have a union how can your colleagues be in it and how can you strike if your not in a union :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in a union but will not be striking. The "right" to strike is something that should be used as a last resort and is appropriate where there are more specific issues directly related to a persons employment and where management are being unreasonable. In my view it is an abuse to use the right to strike just because you don't like the way the Government is handling the national economy.

Strike action will do nothing to help the economy and will only cause loads of irritation to others and impact on the most vulnerable in our society. It is ironic that these calls for strike action should be made on the same day a serious increase in the unemployment figures was announced. Those calling for strike action should count themselves lucky they have got a job and if they don't want to do it then how about giving it up and letting those without one do it instead.

And by just what "right" do the unions think they can have a ballot of their members and then impose misery on everybody else? They may not like the result of the last election but they should respect the outcome because all the nation had the opportunity to vote in that. Of course, they have every right to show their dissatisfaction with the actions of this Government but the way to do that is to protest, and argue the case. If that doesn't prompt the Government to change policy then argue the case for an alternative approach at the next election.

I take it your pension is safe?

My own was increased a couple of years back from 4.5% to 6% to maintain the same final salary pension and my employers are going through a consultation process to increase that to 8% of my salary from January. We don't have the union at my work but many of our colleagues are members and I'd probably strike if directed to. Our working terms and conditions have deteriorated over the last few years and there has to come a point where the employer is shocked into listening.

If your work doesn't have a union how can your colleagues be in it and how can you strike if your not in a union :blink:

IIRC anyone can join most unions (tho some are only for teachers etc) you don't have to 'have one' at your place of employment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in the Royal College of Nursing mostly because I need indemnity insurance as a nurse prescriber. I am angry at the thought of paying more towards my pension as I think I pay a large enough amount each month as it is and even after paying more the benefits are to be less. However because of the nature of my job striking would never be easy and I hope I will never have to make that decision.

I also have a son in 6th year with a heavy year in front of him subject/exam wise so really hope the teachers dont strike anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole "union" thing is kind of interesting to me .... especially when viewed from two different countries.

Through all my working life in the UK I was a member of a union and on the whole found them to be ineffective and toothless. This was of course in the post-Thatcher years after she had taken on and crushed the two most powerful unions into submission and then walked various bits of legislation through parliament to make sure she had and could keep them under control. Previous to that, those two unions (miners and rail) had previously brought the country to a standstill on numerous occasions and even toppled governments either through striking themselves or engaging in things like sending 'flying pickets' to other striking unions !!

I think Thatcher went overboard in the severity of the legislation she introduced but equally, I think the unions themselves also went over the score and were actually looking for confrontation rather than resolution in most disputes, even where a particular union was not actually involved in the action to begin with and just jumped on the bandwagon.

Due to the "determined" personality of the former PM, the whole union thing became a very public pissing contest between her, and usually either Arthur Scargill or Jimmy Knapp depending on what dispute was in the news that week ... and none of the three would budge until either the unions or the government blinked first ... Scargill blinked and the rest is history.

I regarded my membership of the union not as something that would necessarily mean I would strike at the drop of a hat - which the aforementioned ones had done on a regular basis - but something which would protect me personally should my employer, either at local level, or as a company try to screw me on an individual basis or as part of a group of employees. Membership had its privileges such as legal assistance and mandated representation at any disciplinary meetings and as toothless as they were, I saw the union as a sort of "insurance" to be used if needed. I came close on a couple of occasions, but luckily did not have to actually do it.

I am not sure what the current situation is in the UK with regards to striking? I assume there is talk of a general strike because of the economy? If so, then personally, I would be against it as it would only serve to make the problems worse ... you just need to look at Greece for evidence of that. However, if it is all about the "little guy" taking the brunt of the cutbacks and the fat cats are still taking huge salaries, share options, and golden handshakes then I can see why its a bone of contention and a starting point for unrest. In this economic climate, everyone has to tighten the belts and that includes both the normal worker - who yes, may lose some benefits or have to pay a higher percentage of wages for the same benefits - but it also has to include the fat cats who may have to pay more tax and take bonuses based on the economy and company performance rather than guaranteed and obscene wedges just because they are in charge.

As I mentioned at the top of the post, it is interesting to contrast two countries and in Canada right now, unions still have a lot of power ... maybe not as much as the NUM and NUR/RMT of old in the UK, but still considerable.

I am not a union member here in Canada, I work for a private Engineering Consulting firm and although it has 10K employees all over the world it has never lost sight of the fact that employees are its most important asset. On every pay cheque we get a bonus based on how the company is doing, its not much, but it is over an above our salaries. In good times we also get a further % bonus every so often (quarterly or six monthly) based on the overall company profitability over the last quarter, and those are the same for every employee up to and including the CEO. Of course he gets more as his salary is higher, but its not a case of us getting $100 and him getting $1,000,000 ... the differential is a lot less and everyone shares in it. However, in bad times - as experienced over the last couple of years - then everyone, CEO included, take the hit ... we still kept our monthly bonus, the company was quite adamant that it did not want to remove that as - in their words - "many of you have come to rely on this as part of your paycheque", but we did forego our quarterly bonuses and absolutely no-one got a wage rise in 2010. This helped the company ride the storm and this year we are almost as busy as we were before the economy tanked and the pay stubs reflect that again !!!

My wife on the other hand works for the city (or in Inverness terms ... for the council) and is a union member. They have many unions within the city structure and the city staff is something ridiculous like 50,000+ employees ranging from refuse collectors to transit workers to office workers to public health and even to police and other emergency services which come under the city budget. Most of these unions have "collective bargaining agreements" which agree pay and conditions terms over a 3 or 5 year period and every time one is about to expire you can be virtually certain a strike will happen. 2 years ago it was the refuse collectors where it started and it went on for two months. The strike spread to other unions within the city and eventually the mayor caved in and got them back to work.

This year, there is a new mayor and he is overseeing (and overpaying) a consultancy firm to see where savings can be made. He is famous for never claiming expenses as a councillor and ran on a policy of removing the "gravy train" within council and making "no cuts" to public services. However, once he got into power, he discovered the train was more like a bicycle and there wasnt much to cut. He did curb spending of councillors on the ridiculous aspects, but has now been forced to tell every single department within the city to find and cut a minimum of 10% from its budget in an effort to reduce the projected $500 million dollar city budget deficit. This means cuts in staffing, cuts in services, and even cuts in things like policing or the closure or selling off of things like the Zoo, public buildings, and privatisation of things like parking lots (a huge income generator) or refuse collection .... bottom line is that virtually every department in the city is preparing itself for a strike when the current CBA for several unions runs out on January 1st and the expected duration is at least 3 months.

However, where it differs here as this is not the unions calling a strike ... the unions are willing to work with the guy and try to see where sensible cuts can be made ... even to staffing (via retirements or re-assigments or hiring freezes etc) ... it is projected that the city (ie. the employers) will actually lock out these workers if a new CBA is not in place over Christmas. If this projected strike does happen, then the city will save something ridiculous like $150,000 a day in costs, but the overall effect will be devestating and the cost of overtime when the workers go back will eat up any savings just as it did two years ago.

If my wife does go on strike, I will drive her to the picket line for her picket duty (the union actually pays picketers a few dollars a week if they do a certain number of hours - better than $0 wages) ... and although I am not a union member myself, I will certainly not cross any picket lines. I never have and never will, even if I dont agree with the strike. However, on this occasion, it will be a no-brainer as it will be the local government/employer who is the instigator of this confrontation and who is seeking to crush the workers when they are willing to talk and make some compromises .... seems the mayor must fancy himself as the next Maggie Thatcher, but at least she did have Scargill and Knapp as foes ... his foes are imaginary !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have the union at my work but many of our colleagues are members and I'd probably strike if directed to. Our working terms and conditions have deteriorated over the last few years and there has to come a point where the employer is shocked into listening.

If your work doesn't have a union how can your colleagues be in it and how can you strike if your not in a union :blink:

I have been in that situation before! A workplace doesnt have to recognise the union within it and allow things like shop stewards or collective wage bargaining or direct debits straight from wages to the union etc ... but they cannot deny members the right to individually join a union. This kind of situation is (or was) especially prevalent in retail & hospitality industries where terms and conditions are set nationally without the employees (or union) having any say. It also happens with smaller firms.

I presume PMF is in that sort of situation ... some are members, but when it comes to any labour disputes, the company wont consult shop stewards or allow the union to represent members at disciplinary hearings and the member has to make their own DD arrangements to pay their subs etc.

However, I dont see how you could strike without being a member. If members were to strike, and the strike was called legally, then they are legally protected (to a degree) regardless of whether the workplace recognises unions or not ... but if you are not a member you have no such rights, and although you might be "coming out in sympathy", or refusing to cross a picket line, your employer could (and might) regard it as you having "walked out" and sack you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotty, as the law stands in the UK an employer does have to recognise a union if the majority of employees of the company wish to be represented by a union. You are correct that employees can join a union which the employer does not legally recognise but if it was the case that a union was so weak that they could not force recognition through the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) then I doubt they would be calling for a strike in that workplace and seeing as how calling for members to come out in sympathy with union members of another company was outlawed (by Thatcher IIRC) then it is doubtful that anyone in that position would find themselves called to strike in the first place.

Yourpoint about people coming out in sympathy being on the wrong side of the law is also kind of moot as in that situation the union shop stewards would make sure that any employees striking who were not members are signed up ASAP, or at least given the oportunity, in order to protect those supporting them. I am also not sure that you are correct on the legal aspect of going on strike whilst not in a union but would have to look up more information on that point.

Edited by marks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However you look at it, withdrawing your labour is against your employment contract and therefore grounds for dismissal whether you're in the union or not. It is highly unlikely that an employer would target individual non-union employees in such circumstances although they would be within their rights to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotty, as the law stands in the UK an employer does have to recognise a union if the majority of employees of the company wish to be represented by a union.

Yes, now that you mention it, I do recall this.

However, my own personal experience with an employer was that we were in a situation where the company stated in the employee handbook that they didnt feel it was needed, did not recognise unions within the workplace, but did recognise the employees right to be a member of one. I think the handbook did also mention something about the majority clause but cant remember the exact wording of the section ... but suffice to say it was written in a style designed to discourage membership, but not so strongly that they could be taken to task for breaking any employment laws.

They couldnt legally stop us joining the union, but there are plenty of subtle and not so subtle ways for an employer, or management at a local level, to discourage this. We didnt reach a majority so although we did have a shop steward who could liaise with the union directly, he was a 'secret shop steward' who we could go to for advice but who couldnt take action at our branch for fear of management reprisals ......

We basically joined that union only because we had a new manager who treated staff shockingly but was very astute in making sure that whatever was done was done in a very subtle manner or without the benefit of anything being written down or said/done in front of witnesses. I almost got the manager bang to rights when my wages were docked after the death of an immediate family member but after telling the manager I was seeking legal advice from my union because I was entitled to bereavement leave, as well as raising the issue with HR at head office and chatting to a former district manager I regarded as a 'friend' and who was now on the main board of directors at the company, the issue mysteriously disappeared and the official line was that there had been 'a mistake'. After that, the same manager tried every other trick in the book to get me out of the branch either temporarily or permanently such as sending myself and others (coincidentally enough, all union members who had received shocking treatment too) to other branches for specific projects or in my case sending me to head office for 3 months to work on a national project and then when I returned offering me a six month posting on a team that was sent into branches to troubleshoot specific issues ... The posting was six months and a few days, and if I had not been switched on to the contents of our handbook, those extra few days would have given the manager just enough time under company policy to transfer my employment from the branch to head office ...... long story short, I wasnt going to give the manager the satisfaction of winning so I rode out the storm of treatment, did my job, and eventually the manager did realise I was actually very experienced and very good at my job and offered me a promotion (to a position I had previously held) ... I handed in my notice the next day, moved to a direct rival and more or less doubled my wage. And in a happy postscript (for me), the manager was removed "abruptly" only a few months later after it was revealed that several members of the hand selected team that had replaced the union members in responsible positions were actually ripping off the branch left right and centre.

You are correct that employees can join a union which the employer does not legally recognise but if it was the case that a union was so weak that they could not force recognition through the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) then I doubt they would be calling for a strike in that workplace and seeing as how calling for members to come out in sympathy with union members of another company was outlawed (by Thatcher IIRC) then it is doubtful that anyone in that position would find themselves called to strike in the first place.

Yes, I believe you are correct that Thatcher was the one who outlawed "coming out in sympathy" ... that was when she crushed the miners who would send 'flying pickets' to other companies on strike or from one mine to another etc.

As for "weak" unions, I have experience of it ... large though they were, my union was USDAW and they were absolutely toothless. the management structure at that time was terrible and the union itself was pretty meek. My only reason for staying in it was the benefits I got such as being able to consult a solicitor or employment law expert free of charge. I dont recall them ever mentioning any form of industrial action ... ever.

Yourpoint about people coming out in sympathy being on the wrong side of the law is also kind of moot as in that situation the union shop stewards would make sure that any employees striking who were not members are signed up ASAP, or at least given the oportunity, in order to protect those supporting them. I am also not sure that you are correct on the legal aspect of going on strike whilst not in a union but would have to look up more information on that point.

I would agree, the union would make an effort to sign everyone up in that scenario, and if it happened I would say it would be wise to do so ... but if you chose not to, then it is a possibility that the employer would regard you as a walkout as you had no legal mandate to strike .... I do have to temper that by saying its only my opinion and I do not know the legalities, and maybe there is a bit of a minefield there, but as with my personal experience posted in the first part of this response ... an astute employer will realise that there is more than one way to skin a cat and it would be easier to make life difficult for a non union member after the fact than it would be to a union member who has a steward, the backing of a union and access to free legal advice should it be needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However you look at it, withdrawing your labour is against your employment contract and therefore grounds for dismissal whether you're in the union or not. It is highly unlikely that an employer would target individual non-union employees in such circumstances although they would be within their rights to do so.

It is not against employment law so long as all the rules regarding industrial action are followed to the letter and therefore not grounds for dismissal, employers are bound by the law also, usually an employer who recognises a union will have been advised by their legal advisors to have proceedures for industrial action written into the terms and conditions of employment. Non-union member employees would IMHO be mad to strike without the backing of union membership and when you consider that you are within your rights to join a union at any time then signing the application form on the picket line when offered by a shop steward would be a wise thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some little bits in all the comments that are not true. It is true that anyone can join a union and it is true that, if, I believe, 75% of a workforce become members of a union then the employer must recognise them. However, if you, like me, are a member of a union but not recognised by the company you work for, then if your union calls a strike you cannot follow suit. The employer must first recieve written notice that a ballot will take place. The employer must then recieve written notice that strike action will take place. The employer who doesn't recognise the union is going to be a private sector employer, as all public sectors in this country are union recognised, who;s terms and conditions and pension schemes could be excellent. Should this employer be inconvenienced by industrial action that has no bearing on his business or staff?

My understanding is that this planned strike action is among public sector employee's who are now being forced to pay more into their pension schemes for less benefits. Why? Because the pension schemes were mismanaged and tied up with our failed banks and financial institutes. The government then paid out billions to keep those banks afloat using the funds that could have protected existing pension schemes. Strike action is not going to solve any of this. The unions do, however, want to sit round the table but are being ingored by the people in control of the country. The same people who, in the eighties created the boom or bust society. A society where risk made riches until people became so blinded by the wealth that they stopped seeing the level of risk they were taking.

As I said, strikes are not going to counter the effects of the past but they may just waken the country and allow people to see that it is ethically and morally wrong to risk what many have worked for to make riches for the few.

I am very lucky in that I have a pension scheme that has been managed so well in the past that the funds within it are more than enough to benefit all the employees in the company. The scheme is totally seperate from the company and is protected in the event that the company liquidated. The scheme is run by a board and a committee of employee's and one of its rules is that it cannot invest in the parent company. I'm even luckier in that I have never had to pay towards this. Many many people are not so lucky but work just as hard and deserve just as much.

Many years ago, when I started work, I paid Income Tax (for the day to day running of the country) Road Tax (to keep the highways and byways clear) Rates (for the local authority provisions such as water and sewage, schools etc) and National Insurance (for my personal health, welfare and pension) Since then I've been forced to pay increases in all those plus ridiculous increases in tobacco, spirit and fuel costs. Over and above that they've introduced VAT and taxation on insurance premiums. VAT was a tax on goods deemed to be luxury. My clothing is a luxury but if I go around without it on I get arrested. If I go out and by my food then cook it myself thats ok but if I get the local takeaway to buy it and cook it for me thats a luxury. I can buy my food VAT free but to cook it is a luxury. Theres VAT on the gas and electricity. If all that affects me then it also affects everyone else.

No matter how anyone wants to look at it we, the working persons, have all been shafted more and more, since the days of Maggie and we are all now suffering. One in four children in Scotland suffering the effects of poverty. Christ it wasn't even that number in the days before the welfare state was founded. Yet bankers are still being awarded silly money bonuses for failure. Maybe it is time that the unions flexed muscle again and forced some serious controls within our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in a union but will not be striking. The "right" to strike is something that should be used as a last resort and is appropriate where there are more specific issues directly related to a persons employment and where management are being unreasonable. In my view it is an abuse to use the right to strike just because you don't like the way the Government is handling the national economy.

Strike action will do nothing to help the economy and will only cause loads of irritation to others and impact on the most vulnerable in our society. It is ironic that these calls for strike action should be made on the same day a serious increase in the unemployment figures was announced. Those calling for strike action should count themselves lucky they have got a job and if they don't want to do it then how about giving it up and letting those without one do it instead.

And by just what "right" do the unions think they can have a ballot of their members and then impose misery on everybody else? They may not like the result of the last election but they should respect the outcome because all the nation had the opportunity to vote in that. Of course, they have every right to show their dissatisfaction with the actions of this Government but the way to do that is to protest, and argue the case. If that doesn't prompt the Government to change policy then argue the case for an alternative approach at the next election.

Then resign from your union, why should you pick and chose benifits from the union but decide to scab any industrial action, which you are correct is a last resort, aimed at protecting the rights of you and your fellow workers?

If you are so anti-strike then get on your soapbox and make your point, perhaps you can dissaude the membership from taking action, if not either resign your membership or support your union in the same way they would support you.

A members ballot is just that, a ballot, a method of deciding on action taken by the union by asking it's membership what action they would like to take. You have the right to vote no to any action, just as the Union leadership who were elected by yourself and the rest of your collegues have the right to ask for the opinion of their membership. It's called democracy, it's the greatest thing to happen to the civilised world.

Maybe sewerage systems and clean water are the greatest things to happen to the civilised world but democracy is certainly right up there. So what I object to is the little Hitlers in the Union leadership who think they can overide the democratic vote of the nation as a whole on the mandate of the small number of members who vote in a union ballot. That is not democracy, it is a betrayal of democracy. And actually I have resigned from my union - I used to be a member of Unite but have recently joined a more professionally focussed union where the efforts are focussed on the interests of its members in relation to their jobs and not in undermining the process of parliamentary democracy.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However you look at it, withdrawing your labour is against your employment contract and therefore grounds for dismissal whether you're in the union or not. It is highly unlikely that an employer would target individual non-union employees in such circumstances although they would be within their rights to do so.

It is not against employment law so long as all the rules regarding industrial action are followed to the letter and therefore not grounds for dismissal, employers are bound by the law also, usually an employer who recognises a union will have been advised by their legal advisors to have proceedures for industrial action written into the terms and conditions of employment. Non-union member employees would IMHO be mad to strike without the backing of union membership and when you consider that you are within your rights to join a union at any time then signing the application form on the picket line when offered by a shop steward would be a wise thing.

Actually, it is against employment law and it is a breach of contract. It's just that the "right to strike" laws for union members supersede those and offer protection (for up to 12 weeks) during "protected" strike action.

Individuals also have the right to withhold their labour to an employer, but they aren't automatically protected by law. If an individual chooses to strike, they can be sacked immediately. If they are, then the case becomes one of constructive dismissal where it us up to the individual to prove that they had taken all the necessary steps to resolve a legitimate issue before withdrawing labour...the same as a union must do before a strike can be sanctioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that this planned strike action is among public sector employee's who are now being forced to pay more into their pension schemes for less benefits. Why?

The fundamental problem is actually that people are living longer. For some of these defined benefit pension schemes the contribution levels were set decades ago. If in that time life expectancy increases by 10 years and you expect a pension of ?10,000 a year, then someone somewhere has to find an extra ?100,000 to fund your retirement.

Do these public sector workers not think it is reasonable that they put in a little bit extra, bearing in mind that they are the ones who will be getting the extra years of income at the other end? Or do they think that other people (me and you) who donm't have the luxury of a guaranteed level of retirement income, should fund it all for them?

On this particular issue the strikers will get no sympathy whatsoever from me. Reality check needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some little bits in all the comments that are not true. It is true that anyone can join a union and it is true that, if, I believe, 75% of a workforce become members of a union then the employer must recognise them. However, if you, like me, are a member of a union but not recognised by the company you work for, then if your union calls a strike you cannot follow suit. The employer must first recieve written notice that a ballot will take place. The employer must then recieve written notice that strike action will take place. The employer who doesn't recognise the union is going to be a private sector employer, as all public sectors in this country are union recognised, who;s terms and conditions and pension schemes could be excellent. Should this employer be inconvenienced by industrial action that has no bearing on his business or staff?

The 75% figure is wrong.

Ballot (paragraphs 23-29)

A ballot will take place if a majority of the bargaining unit are not members, or where the CAC orders it. Unless the unions (on their own or with the employer) notify the CAC that they do not want this to proceed.

A scrutineer must be appointed and the ballot completed within 20 working days.

There are legal duties on the employer to co-operate with the ballot, provide lists of names and give the union access to campaign. There is a statutory code of practice which sets out the access requirements in more detail. This is intended to deal with obstruction from employers. The CAC has the power to order the employer to take steps to adhere to the code and, if they refuse to do so, to order that recognition is granted.

The CAC decides whether the ballot should be workplace or postal, or a combination of the two. The cost of the ballot is shared between the union and the employer.

To secure recognition, a union needs a vote in favour from a majority of those voting and 40% of those balloted.

CaleyD I believe that you are correct in your last post, this just goes to show that no matter how much we think we know everyone should consider that a union is a very handy thing when you find yourself in any type of dispute with your employer because they will have legal back-up if needed and if you are in a union they will have teams of legal back-up and advice ready to help you if needed, and not only in the workplace most unions will offer you legal advice and representation for issues outwith work as well. My mistake in my previous posts.

Doofers Dad, I am like you and find my current union to be of the more professional out there but if they do decide to strike then I trust my fellow employees who elected the officials from the shop steward to the leader. Democracy works on many levels and these "little Hitlers" can only take action which has been sanctioned by the workers which they represent by a majority vote. Just to put a point straight, the Nation did not vote for the Government we have today IIRC the smallest party to return MPs in the general election ultimately decided on who would form the Government. The Lib-Dems took over a week to decide where to go and made their decision based on how much power their paltry vote would buy, IMHO this is more a case of "undermining the process of parliamentary democracy" than workers fighting for their conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't mistake my comments as being in any way supportive of Unions.

I agree with the principle of them, just unfortunate that they are lead (from Shop Steward level upwards) by self serving egotistical bastards with more interest in shit stirring and making a name for themselves than they are with looking after it's individual members. When you have an personal issue they can't be found anywhere, when they see the opportunity to do some hell-raising then they're all over you like a bad rash and you can't get rid of them.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that this planned strike action is among public sector employee's who are now being forced to pay more into their pension schemes for less benefits. Why?

The fundamental problem is actually that people are living longer. For some of these defined benefit pension schemes the contribution levels were set decades ago. If in that time life expectancy increases by 10 years and you expect a pension of ?10,000 a year, then someone somewhere has to find an extra ?100,000 to fund your retirement.

Do these public sector workers not think it is reasonable that they put in a little bit extra, bearing in mind that they are the ones who will be getting the extra years of income at the other end? Or do they think that other people (me and you) who donm't have the luxury of a guaranteed level of retirement income, should fund it all for them?

On this particular issue the strikers will get no sympathy whatsoever from me. Reality check needed.

Tad harsh maybe. Dont believe all you read about public service gold plated pensions, mine is nowhere near the figure quoted and we do contribute to our current pensions. If it was a litt;e extra to maintain the status quo then I think most would be willing to do that but its not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy