Unite

[Gingeletiss]

I see that Unite are seeking to make all union members pay a 2% levy, to support striking BA cabin staff. This is so wrong on so many fronts. I didn't think they had the right to take money off me, without my say so. I do not support the striking cabin crew. Where was Unite when we were being screwed last year, oh I forgot, our little firm would not have made the national news. I'd rather quit the union, than pay this money:mad:

Edited 29 March, 2010 by Gingeletiss

[View From The Top]

I see that Unite are seeking to make all union members pay a 2% levy, to support sticking BA cabin staff. This is so wrong on so many fronts. I didn't think they had the right to take money off me, without my say so. I do not support the striking cabin crew. Where was Unite when we were being screwed last year, oh I forgot, our little firm would not have made the national news. I'd rather quit the union, than pay this money:mad:

 

I'm left of centre and a union member but I too would resign my membership in this situation.

 

If the FFF's can fu©k right off.

[CB Saint]

Can unions impose additional levies? Is this part of the membership rules.

 

If the Gatwick hosties are Unite members it would be ironic if they have to subsidise their better paid colleagues at Heathrow.

[Thedelldays]

If the Gatwick hosties are Unite members it would be ironic if they have to subsidise their better paid colleagues at Heathrow.

I wonder what FF thinks about this..?

[Atticus Finch of Maycomb]

you obviously dont understand anything

[hamster]

Am I correct in assuming that most of one's Union subs go towards fighting other people's causes?

 

No-one has been duped here, and forgive me not knowing all the minutiae of any particular case, but why let the headline writers push you into leaving. Leave because you don't want to be in ahe Union full stop, not because you don't agree with one particular dispute.

 

If you agree with TU ideals then join, if you don't then leave. No offence mate, but seriously if it's a tough decision to make then I would suggest you stay in as for every dispute that hits the headlines like this one, there are hundreds more that don't. There are people out there who really depend on OUR support. I say this as someone who seriously was considering because of something that occured 'locally'. I'm glad I stayed in.

[Johnny Bognor]

I see that Unite are seeking to make all union members pay a 2% levy, to support striking BA cabin staff. This is so wrong on so many fronts. I didn't think they had the right to take money off me, without my say so. I do not support the striking cabin crew. Where was Unite when we were being screwed last year, oh I forgot, our little firm would not have made the national news. I'd rather quit the union, than pay this money:mad:

 

Be careful if you do, because if you leave the union and they subsequently go on strike, then prepared to be bulied and harassed. They are only happy when they are doing the bullying.

[TopGun]

I am involved in a proposal for a power station on Humberside. We ran a public exhibition and before you could say trade union there was this bloke from Unite waving his finger in my face and telling me that the energy generation company involved would have to run the plant with the union.

 

800 construction jobs and 150 operational jobs already planned in an area with high unemployment. The bloke was unbelievable.

[Barney Trubble]

Surely a small amount to help your colleagues isn't too much to ask?

 

Not much of a Union man with attitudes like yours, you seem very much one of Thatchers children too, it's about helping each other out in times of need.

 

A Union is only as strong as it's members, if you don't want to help people out, or are only interested in supporting causes that you agree with then you might as well pull out.

 

Not being an ass here, just the way I see being part of a Union. I am not in one myself but that's my perception of it all. Maybe I have got it all wrong.

[Arizona]

Surely a small amount to help your colleagues isn't too much to ask?

 

Not much of a Union man with attitudes like yours, you seem very much one of Thatchers children too, it's about helping each other out in times of need.

 

A Union is only as strong as it's members, if you don't want to help people out, or are only interested in supporting causes that you agree with then you might as well pull out.

 

Not being an ass here, just the way I see being part of a Union. I am not in one myself but that's my perception of it all. Maybe I have got it all wrong.

 

Who in their right mind supports a cause they DON'T agree with?

[Barney Trubble]

Who in their right mind supports a cause they DON'T agree with?

 

Well whats the point of being in a union then? Seems pointless.

 

If you are only interested in fighting for causes that suit you then you are better off going alone. Seems a daft attitude to not support your colleagues just because you don't believe in what they are fighting for.

 

Maybe I am about helping people, as opposed to you being about what suits you and **** the rest. A sort of 'i'm alright jack' attitude:D

 

I'd hate to be with you in times of trouble when I have done something wrong, made a mistake or screwed up and people are out to get me - there I would be, relying on you to back me and give me a bit of help and you'd just leave me stranded because you felt that I deserved it :smt102:D

[View From The Top]

Prehaps it's because unions now represent whole reams of areas opposed to the specialist areas of the past and therefore fees maybe used in a sector that you know nothing about, little care for and disagree with what they are doing.

[Clapham Saint]

Am I correct in assuming that most of one's Union subs go towards fighting other people's causes?

 

No-one has been duped here, and forgive me not knowing all the minutiae of any particular case, but why let the headline writers push you into leaving. Leave because you don't want to be in ahe Union full stop, not because you don't agree with one particular dispute.

 

If you agree with TU ideals then join, if you don't then leave. No offence mate, but seriously if it's a tough decision to make then I would suggest you stay in as for every dispute that hits the headlines like this one, there are hundreds more that don't. There are people out there who really depend on OUR support. I say this as someone who seriously was considering because of something that occured 'locally'. I'm glad I stayed in.

 

Gordon Brown's?

[Arizona]

Well whats the point of being in a union then? Seems pointless.

 

If you are only interested in fighting for causes that suit you then you are better off going alone. Seems a daft attitude to not support your colleagues just because you don't believe in what they are fighting for.

 

Maybe I am about helping people, as opposed to you being about what suits you and **** the rest. A sort of 'i'm alright jack' attitude:D

 

I'd hate to be with you in times of trouble when I have done something wrong, made a mistake or screwed up and people are out to get me - there I would be, relying on you to back me and give me a bit of help and you'd just leave me stranded because you felt that I deserved it :smt102:D

 

I can understand the concept of being in a union of people in similar situations. However, I don't get the whole, "here, have some of my wages to help with a dispute which is nothing to do with me," attitude.

 

If you think BA cabin crew are in "times of trouble" then you are misguided.

[hamster]

I may be foolish and say some foolish things at times, but this is not one of those occasions.

 

What is so wrong with supporting someone (working class, at that) is scared for their future? Has no-one on here been cornereed and scared for their future, and their childrens and grandchildren's future ad infinitum. Get behind the 'trolley dollies' ffs.

 

Or stay out of it, sorry to be so course, but these people have rights that people died for to establish. No offence intended, I promise.

[Saint George]

I may be foolish and say some foolish things at times, but this is not one of those occasions.

 

What is so wrong with supporting someone (working class, at that) is scared for their future? Has no-one on here been cornereed and scared for their future, and their childrens and grandchildren's future ad infinitum. Get behind the 'trolley dollies' ffs.

 

Or stay out of it, sorry to be so course, but these people have rights that people died for to establish. No offence intended, I promise.

 

So just who was it that "died" in the name of "trolly dollies" having the unquestionable right to work for BA?......Am i missing something here?

[CB Saint]

I may be foolish and say some foolish things at times, but this is not one of those occasions.

 

What is so wrong with supporting someone (working class, at that) is scared for their future? Has no-one on here been cornereed and scared for their future, and their childrens and grandchildren's future ad infinitum. Get behind the 'trolley dollies' ffs.

 

Or stay out of it, sorry to be so course, but these people have rights that people died for to establish. No offence intended, I promise.

 

I suspect everyone on here has at some point in their career. In my case I found an alternative employer in the same field. The trouble with the BA dispute is that the "trolley dollies" know they have the best gig in town and cannot move without taking a pay cut. this is what people are taking issue with - they have the best pay and conditions in the industry and they are still complaining. When you set that against the current economic reality - sympathy is in short supply.

 

As an aside, some of these stewardesses are earning £50k+ which doesn't sound particularly working class to me.

[Gingeletiss]

Ok ( prepares to be slaughtered ). I'm in the union, as like most people in the private sector, it goes with the job. My political affiliations are blue, I will not hide from that fact. We have over the years, moved from a localised union ( as pointed out by view from the top ) to the now, biggest union in the country, with affiliations overseas.

 

I accept a proportion of my fees go to helping over union members, as I also know that a part goes towards the labour party, which I admit, hurts. I however, reserve the right to not give extra funds to a cause I disagree with. I will not be forced into this, if Unite want extra money for the cabin staff, then it should be either voluntary, or divert some of the millions they give to Labour.

 

Hamster, no, I'm not a good Union man, I was however a shop steward, and I hope, a good one. There are injustices that need addressing, and you can only do that through strength. In my OP, I said that Unite didn't support me and my colleagues last year, we lost not only pay, but hard fought conditions, I didn't see one sniff of any support from cabin staff.

 

ps Hamster, TB said some years back, that the class system was dead, only Labour refer to it now!

Edited 30 March, 2010 by Gingeletiss

[Weston Super Saint]

Well whats the point of being in a union then? Seems pointless.

 

If you are only interested in fighting for causes that suit you then you are better off going alone. Seems a daft attitude to not support your colleagues just because you don't believe in what they are fighting for.

 

Maybe I am about helping people, as opposed to you being about what suits you and **** the rest. A sort of 'i'm alright jack' attitude:D

 

I'd hate to be with you in times of trouble when I have done something wrong, made a mistake or screwed up and people are out to get me - there I would be, relying on you to back me and give me a bit of help and you'd just leave me stranded because you felt that I deserved it :smt102:D

 

Surely if you'd done something wrong, screwed up or made a mistake then people would have every right to be out to get you?

 

Or do you think that being in a union should protect you if you make a mistake?

 

What if you're an air traffic controller and you make a mistake and two planes crash into each other? Do you think you should be 'protected' by the union or should you man up and face the consequences of your actions?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Ok ( prepares to be slaughtered ). I'm in the union, as like most people in the private sector, it goes with the job. My political affiliations are blue, I will not hide from that fact. We have over the years, moved from a localised union ( as pointed out by view from the top ) to the now, biggest union in the country, with affiliations overseas.

 

I accept a proportion of my fees go to helping over union members, as I also know that a part goes towards the labour party, which I admit, hurts. I however, reserve the right to not give extra funds to a cause I disagree with. I will not be forced into this, if Unite want extra money for the cabin staff, then it should be either voluntary, or divert some of the millions they give to Labour.

 

Hamster, no, I'm not a good Union man, I was however a shop steward, and I hope, a good one. There are injustices that need addressing, and you can only do that through strength. In my OP, I said that Unite didn't support me and my colleagues last year, we lost not only pay, but hard fought conditions, I didn't see one sniff of any support from cabin staff.

 

ps Hamster, TB said some years back, that the class system was dead, only Labour refer to it now!

 

Are you aware that you can elect to not pay the political levy part of your Union Dues?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Surely if you'd done something wrong, screwed up or made a mistake then people would have every right to be out to get you?

 

Or do you think that being in a union should protect you if you make a mistake?

 

What if you're an air traffic controller and you make a mistake and two planes crash into each other? Do you think you should be 'protected' by the union or should you man up and face the consequences of your actions?

 

That in itself is a reasonable comment. However, unions are there to protect people from far more common situations. Having worked as public employee recently I can confirm that bullying, in it's various forms, and harrassment are endemic in the particular section of the establishment I worked in. The Union ensures that people get the correct representation when faced with this type of thing. Managers with Dickensian attitudes to the workforce are made accountable for their actions. Hopefully, staff are then no longer bullied and then become more productive through less days 'throwing a sickie'. More often than not succesful companies are successful through working in tandem with the workers. It's often that the Union provide the channels which enable that process.

 

Meanwhile, to all those who knock the Unions. (and some do deserve it)

 

How did the workers get decent, paid holidays?

 

How were safe working practices implemented?

 

Why do your kids no longer have to work at too early an age, with unsafe equipment?

 

These things are taken for granted but, without workers representation, may well have never been brought to Parliament for the necessary changes.

 

Not all Unions are bad, in fact most are highly reasonable and seek to work with management rather than against them. IMHO.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I am involved in a proposal for a power station on Humberside. We ran a public exhibition and before you could say trade union there was this bloke from Unite waving his finger in my face and telling me that the energy generation company involved would have to run the plant with the union.

 

800 construction jobs and 150 operational jobs already planned in an area with high unemployment. The bloke was unbelievable.

 

Unions no doubt have a role to play but it is a buyers market today and if you do not accept it then they will loom elsewhere; like East Europe. This comment sums up a mentality that should stay firmly in the seventies. How many other foreign investors have been turned away from propsectus sites by this attitude.

[Gingeletiss]

Are you aware that you can elect to not pay the political levy part of your Union Dues?

 

Thank you ESB, I didn't know that!

 

I don't believe that Unions are all bad, however, there is an awful amount of pressure to have to join one. My present employer would not discuss my contact/pay and conditions with me after my first year, as he said their agreement was with Unison (now Unite), therefore I had no choice but join a union!

[OldNick]

I was told, (not sure if it is true)that the BA staffs contracts were from 1947. If true then how can that be correct for 2010?

I understand why they want to keep their perks, but they should understand if they want the company to be there in 10 or 20 years time they have ot make the changes.

IMO they have little support from the public as a whole. They have taken the wrong route and sadly the union leaders always come across as militant uncouth oafs, who only seem to be able to bully.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

I was told, (not sure if it is true)that the BA staffs contracts were from 1947. If true then how can that be correct for 2010?

I understand why they want to keep their perks, but they should understand if they want the company to be there in 10 or 20 years time they have ot make the changes.

IMO they have little support from the public as a whole. They have taken the wrong route and sadly the union leaders always come across as militant uncouth oafs, who only seem to be able to bully.

 

Remembering, of course, that the press is now mainly of a right wing leaning and, as such, will seek to disparage the 'uncouth oafs' of the Unions through their publications. While glorifying the wonder of Murdoch et al.

 

As a union member I can still stand back and try to see both sides of the BA dispute. Certainly if my union were seeking common ground with employers in an effort to save jobs I would get my back up if I felt I was being bullied into just about rolling over for dead. Mutually Assured Destruction isn't a path to choose lightly but you have to wonder as to what is really going on for both sides to be so firmly entrenched in their views with seemingly no way out.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Thank you ESB, I didn't know that!

 

I don't believe that Unions are all bad, however, there is an awful amount of pressure to have to join one. My present employer would not discuss my contact/pay and conditions with me after my first year, as he said their agreement was with Unison (now Unite), therefore I had no choice but join a union!

 

Clear example to you, from my last employer.

 

When a union briefing took place the non union members were sent to jobs so that they got no feedback from the meeting. This was NOT at the unions behest but from Management. They were not supposed to know if you were a union member but somehow they did, maybe from checking payroll for union deductions?

 

Furthermore, the non union members were the ones who were pressurised into working extra overtime even if they didn't want to do it.

[OldNick]

Remembering, of course, that the press is now mainly of a right wing leaning and, as such, will seek to disparage the 'uncouth oafs' of the Unions through their publications. While glorifying the wonder of Murdoch et al.

 

As a union member I can still stand back and try to see both sides of the BA dispute. Certainly if my union were seeking common ground with employers in an effort to save jobs I would get my back up if I felt I was being bullied into just about rolling over for dead. Mutually Assured Destruction isn't a path to choose lightly but you have to wonder as to what is really going on for both sides to be so firmly entrenched in their views with seemingly no way out.

I agree that it seems that it may be a fight to the death. Ifr BA are prepared to rent other aircraft for a cost of 5m a day then they are going for broke (poor term perhaps)

I have not yet seen any good reason why BA staff should get more pay and perks than any of their competitors. if the staff are so good they will walk into jobs at any other airline.......

[Super_Uwe]

I agree that it seems that it may be a fight to the death. Ifr BA are prepared to rent other aircraft for a cost of 5m a day then they are going for broke (poor term perhaps)

I have not yet seen any good reason why BA staff should get more pay and perks than any of their competitors. if the staff are so good they will walk into jobs at any other airline.......

 

I agree with you to a certain extent here.

 

The problem IMO for BA is that it just doesn't quite fit in any more. It's trading more than ever on its old reputation - yes, there used to be genuine pride in the name and it was recognised throughout the world.

 

But times have changed and because of the variety of different airlines available now, it's hard for BA to try and retain so many customers in the face of much cheaper options.

 

I've been on BA flights in recent times; last year I flew to Sicily for £120 return. The plane itself was a bit shabby and hadn't been done up for a while, but I didn't really care - it took off OK!

 

The main thing I thought about afterwards was to do with price - yes, I'm sure BA would rather fill the seat than not at all, but are they really making a profit on my £120 when you bear in mind all the other overheads such as the wages, pension scheme etc? As a customer I was delighted with the price (and I even got some alright grub as well), but you have to wonder what the real cost was for BA.

 

It would be really interesting to know the ins-and-outs of the dispute. I don't agree with people who say "No, you should pipe down at get on with it" if they are genuinely being screwed over. Whether they are or not, who knows?

[Hatch]

A bus load of UNITE members have just driven past my office, shouting and screaming and banging , trying to drum up public support.

 

Noisy buggers.

[Viking Warrior]

I don't have a lot of time for unite. My lass works fro the Pru in Reading and has been red circled on her salary for almost 15 years. given inflation you would have thought she would have seen a consolidated rise by now. Her salary is just over 20k per annaum. no bonuses or any extras.

 

Now her Union formely Amicus now Unite are not prepared to tackle the Pru on these injustices, She is not the only one suffering this injustice.

 

She pays her union fees for what , so she can donate to the BA unite hardship fund. Unite need to get their priorities right. Instead of fighting the cause of highly paid Trolley Birds who have all sorts of perks.

 

PS My BA Flight from Heathrow to Edinburgh was on time today, The cabin crew were really helpful as usual. I saw no sign of strikes let alone picket lines as I arrived at T5. So well done to the crew on the 1135 to Edinburgh.

 

As for Unite well I will not hold my breath as they almost messed up my flights to Wembley at the weekend

[Wiltshire Saint]

Unions no doubt have a role to play but it is a buyers market today and if you do not accept it then they will loom elsewhere; like East Europe. This comment sums up a mentality that should stay firmly in the seventies. How many other foreign investors have been turned away from propsectus sites by this attitude.

 

You think those people will continue to work for little money in the future? Britain once used children and cheap labour, working in poor conditions with few rights.....but we developed as a country and so the next place in the world where people can be exploited is looked for.....and as they develop as a nation, their rights develop.....and so the next place for exploitation is looked for. What do you want? A country where we have made no progress since the times children were shoved up chimneys?

 

Without wishing to appear to rude or anything, but all those opposing unions are selfish people who only see life in terms of "what's in it for me". I hope you all get sacked and have no means of complaining.

[CB Saint]

You think those people will continue to work for little money in the future? Britain once used children and cheap labour, working in poor conditions with few rights.....but we developed as a country and so the next place in the world where people can be exploited is looked for.....and as they develop as a nation, their rights develop.....and so the next place for exploitation is looked for. What do you want? A country where we have made no progress since the times children were shoved up chimneys?

 

Without wishing to appear to rude or anything, but all those opposing unions are selfish people who only see life in terms of "what's in it for me". I hope you all get sacked and have no means of complaining.

 

What a ridiculous comment to make. It not a case of opposing all unions per se, it a case of critising a union which has, IMO, tenuous grounds for compliant in this instance. Unions have a useful role to fulfill in today's society - militant ones don't.

 

As for wishing that everyone who disagrees with your point of gets sacked - a little bit childish don't you think.

[Viking Warrior]

Wiltshire I think your missing the point. Unions do have a place in society, don't get me wrong. but some shop stewards and regional officers tend to back the wrong cause or member.

 

Not too long ago I was involved in a messy case involving teachers. A teacher was being seriously bullied by another teacher. Both were in the same union .

The local union bent over backwards for the perpertrator despite the victim going to them in the first place. The victim had to get a national officer up to represent them. Union versus Union. was pleasant but at least the culprit got their just rewards.

So yes I do have time for Unions but they need to fight the right causes

 

Im not selfish as you might suggest but somebody that can see the whole equation, union member or not

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Wiltshire Saint you are very wrong; I believe passionately that you get the best out of people when you look after them - look at John Lewis. The problem is that we compete in a global marketplace where companies will go elsewhere if they feel they can operate more competively - that is life rightly or wrongly. Unions have made the UK marketplace unattractive to foreign investors as Top Gun's example illustrates. That is why we have a shrinking private sector and a growng public sector (how long can that go on?). The public sector worker generally has shorter hours, takes more time off sick, has longer holidays and retires earlier. We in the private sector have been told that we must retire later to accomodate this. It is market forces. Your model would have us like Cuba.

[Big John]

Here you go Ginge:

 

 

http://www.ourunion.org.uk/PoliticalFundExemption.pdf

 

None of the political parties should have any union members money in my opinion and the opt out 'option' is clearly wrong. People should have to opt in surely?

 

And whenever did knocking someone from the top rung of the career ladder make anyone below better off? Don't just take and 'anti' stance because they earn good money or have more annual leave than you have. I reckon there is a lot of envy on here which I beleve is driving much (not all) of the argument.

 

I wouldn't personally wish to contribute over and above what I'd already chiiped in were I a member for ANY one particular dispute, as I understand that these big unions have massive fighting funds for this purpose already. Maybe they are scared that their assets will be frozen by the courts should the employer launch another legal challenge?

[bridge too far]

Here you go Ginge:

 

 

http://www.ourunion.org.uk/PoliticalFundExemption.pdf

 

None of the political parties should have any union members money in my opinion and the opt out 'option' is clearly wrong. People should have to opt in surely?

 

..................................

 

How then would you propose that political parties are funded? By the state?

 

That's fine if it's a level playing field. But you would then have to ban multi-millionaires making huge donations to the Conservatives. Like tax-dodging Lord Ashcroft.

 

Would you be happy for that to happen?

[Big John]

How then would you propose that political parties are funded? By the state?

 

That's fine if it's a level playing field. But you would then have to ban multi-millionaires making huge donations to the Conservatives. Like tax-dodging Lord Ashcroft.

 

Would you be happy for that to happen?

 

 

Maybe if people opted in to the political fund they (Labour) might get a better feel for what their supporters want from them. As it stands, I feel that the party takes it for granted and only cowtows (sp) to the unions when it suits them. TU's are treated by political parties as toothless tigers in my view but wouldnt it be interesting if one of the big guns switched allegiances or just put the lot in some investment vehicle for a couple of years?

 

At the end of the day, Labour will come up with Labour policies and a manifesto that suits them.

[bridge too far]

Maybe if people opted in to the political fund they (Labour) might get a better feel for what their supporters want from them. As it stands, I feel that the party takes it for granted and only cowtows (sp) to the unions when it suits them. TU's are treated by political parties as toothless tigers in my view but wouldnt it be interesting if one of the big guns switched allegiances or just put the lot in some investment vehicle for a couple of years?

 

At the end of the day, Labour will come up with Labour policies and a manifesto that suits them.

 

But, with respect, you didn't answer my question.

 

I don't 'opt in' either when I buy products from large companies who contribute to the Conservative party. I also don't have the option of opting out by saying to these companies 'I'll pay you 1% less because I don't want to contribute to your donation fund'.

 

Sauce for the goose and all that

[Big John]

But, with respect, you didn't answer my question.

I don't 'opt in' either when I buy products from large companies who contribute to the Conservative party. I also don't have the option of opting out by saying to these companies 'I'll pay you 1% less because I don't want to contribute to your donation fund'.

 

Sauce for the goose and all that

 

No i didn't, sorry.

 

I don't know the answer but the relationship surely can't carry on ike it has been. The similarities between the union ethos and new labour's are not that clear to my eyes.

 

Not sure what to do about Ashcroft but he again is surely not representative of all tories and this whole area needs sorting out. I hear so many people nowadays telling me that they aren't going to vote in May and surprisingly they come from all the main parties support groups, so maybe the anticipated slump in voting numbers will make no difference either way as they cancel each other out?

[Redondo Saint]

I may be foolish and say some foolish things at times, but this is not one of those occasions.

 

What is so wrong with supporting someone (working class, at that) is scared for their future? Has no-one on here been cornereed and scared for their future, and their childrens and grandchildren's future ad infinitum. Get behind the 'trolley dollies' ffs.

 

Or stay out of it, sorry to be so course, but these people have rights that people died for to establish. No offence intended, I promise.

 

You can't possibly be serious????

 

Sorry, but it is one of those occasions when you are being foolish.

 

Do you really think there are any jobs where you can have no concern for your own future or childrens, etc???

 

Does your employer 'owe' you a living and security?

 

A business has to be competitive to survive - unions can't secure jobs. Check our where your TV, shoes, car, telephone, etc, were all made.

 

I thought this dispute was about money not job security anyway??

Edited 30 March, 2010 by Redondo Saint

[bridge too far]

I understood this dispute was about changes to working practices that the management tried to impose on the workforce. In fact I understand that the union's members offered to take pay cuts in order to avoid some of their fellow workers being made redundant.

 

A successful business needs a fair employer and a contented workforce. Earlier someone cited John Lewis as prime example of how a beneficial employer gains so much from the respect it affords its workforce.

 

A harsh employer will have a high staff turnover and a discontented workforce, neither of which is condusive to success in the long term.

[benjii]

Well whats the point of being in a union then? Seems pointless.

 

If you are only interested in fighting for causes that suit you then you are better off going alone. Seems a daft attitude to not support your colleagues just because you don't believe in what they are fighting for.

 

Maybe I am about helping people, as opposed to you being about what suits you and **** the rest. A sort of 'i'm alright jack' attitude:D

 

I'd hate to be with you in times of trouble when I have done something wrong, made a mistake or screwed up and people are out to get me - there I would be, relying on you to back me and give me a bit of help and you'd just leave me stranded because you felt that I deserved it :smt102:D

 

I think that's one of the funniest things I've ever read.

[Johnny Bognor]

A harsh employer will have a high staff turnover and a discontented workforce, neither of which is condusive to success in the long term.

 

What I find ironic is that British Gas engineers voted Centrica as one of Britain's top employers (top 20 I think) only a couple of months ago. Last week they voted for strike action. WTF is that all about?

[buctootim]

What I find ironic is that British Gas engineers voted Centrica as one of Britain's top employers (top 20 I think) only a couple of months ago. Last week they voted for strike action. WTF is that all about?

 

They want to be top three and get promoted to Gazprom

[hamster]

Is there a difference between 'blind faith' and hacing values, values that for whatever reason you trust?

 

I accept all the differing opinions but for me persoanlly I would hate to swap places with a BA flight attendant right now. One thing that does rankle a little though is how the high profile union groups like the railwaymen and BA staff have fallen for this very clever trick, you can bet that ALL of the political parties are drooling over the prospect of slaughtering these lambs.

 

Poor old girls, at least they'll get a decent redundancy payout. Well until that's been spent and they have to claim benefits, then they'll become plain old lazy scroungers, the ones that we are all supposed to really detest. What's worse to some I wonder?

[Gingeletiss]

Here you go Ginge:

 

 

http://www.ourunion.org.uk/PoliticalFundExemption.pdf

 

None of the political parties should have any union members money in my opinion and the opt out 'option' is clearly wrong. People should have to opt in surely?

nd whenever did knocking someone from the top rung of the career ladder make anyone below better off? Don't just take and 'anti' stance because they earn good money or have more annual leave than you have. I reckon there is a lot of envy on here which I beleve is driving much (not all) of the argument.

 

I wouldn't personally wish to contribute over and above what I'd already chiiped in were I a member for ANY one particular dispute, as I understand that these big unions have massive fighting funds for this purpose already. Maybe they are scared that their assets will be frozen by the courts should the employer launch another legal challenge?

 

 

Thanks, now printed, filled out, and sent.

[hamster]

Thanks, now printed, filled out, and sent.

 

 

I opted out when I joined GLT, I still think that the current setup whereby new members pay into a political party no metter what their allegiances are is totally out of order. This needs changing and the sooner the better.

 

I also note that you have to pay to post that form in! It should be a FREEPOST address at the very least imo.

[Viking Warrior]

Strange Priorities

According to media reports, Unite is planning to raise £700,000 in a 'cash call' on its membership to keep the British Airways strike going.

 

Now this is a very odd thing to do - because super-sized unions like Unite are very wealthy organisations indeed - with tens of millions of pounds in their piggy banks.

 

So much money in fact that they're able to give lots of it away - on a regular basis.

 

£11 million has gone into Labour party coffers over the past five years - despite the fact that the great majority of ordinary Unite members are not even Labour supporters.

 

The additional funds are being raised by a levy on Unite’s 3,000 branches - not individual members - but this is the members' money too - who's asking them how it should be spent?

 

If trade unions like Unite got behind their members with all their resources - and stopped diverting huge sums to the Labour party - they'd be able to support their members properly in the event of a strike.

 

By a strange coincidence just about half of Labour's front-bench team at Westminster are all members of Unite - so don't expect any rank and file rebellion to start from there.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Strange Priorities . .

. . £11 million has gone into Labour party coffers over the past five years - despite the fact that the great majority of ordinary Unite members are not even Labour supporters.

 

 

At least union members are free to choose whether they wish to pay the political levy.

 

As a consumer I have no choice whether part of what I spend in various businesses goes to any political party.

 

You no longer have to be a union member these days. Likewise, if you get into trouble (not of your making) at work, the Union does not have to represent non union members.

 

Yet non union members are happy to accept good wage rises and conditions often negotiated by those same unions!