The Student Room Group

Would you join a union?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
It's Much more important at the bottom end of the labour market. If you're in a commoditized job and you could easily be replaced, then it makes a lot more sense to be in a union. It's like buying a job insurance policy with some legal advice and financial services thrown in.

But tbh I wouldn't want the extra hassle of being the one organising a union in my workplace... So I'd be a bit of a freeloader.
Reply 21
Original post by a729
Not if the union is overly militant-think RMT with Bob Crow and the forever striking tube drivers who will earn 52k by 2015! For only 35 hours work a week and free travel for themselves and their family!

Never mind you would be forced to directly or indirectly fund the Labour party and Bob Crow's ironically high salary!


Especially if the union is very effective like the RMT. Unless you're prepared to forgo the benefits the union negotiates.

As for funding the labour party, everyone has the option to not pay the political fund.
Original post by Rakas21
I would never join a union because whilst i have no issue with collective bargaining i consider strikes and the government protection that surrounds them to be abhorrent and could not be affiliated with such an organization if i wished to keep my dignity.


What government protection is giving to strikes? You do realise people who go on strike don't get paid and can't get social security.
Original post by L i b
I don't really have a problem with organised labour in theory - but the reality of it is that most unions are fronts for far-left politics.


I'm sorry, this is absolute and utter nonsense. Aside from the RMT and UCU, unions tend to be centre-left, which considering their remit is doing their best to support their members rights, pay and working conditions, is actually entirely justifiable from a pragmatic perspective

It sounds like you really don't know very much about the daily work of unions.
Original post by Kibalchich
When i was doing my shop steward training with Unite, there was a tory on the course as well as people with no particular politics. Unions are not far left. They are reformist not revolutionary.


Exactly. Excellent comment.

Then again, a lot of people aren't particularly aware of the difference between revolutionary socialism / Marxism-Leninism and social democracy and parliamentary socialism (like the old Callaghan / Healeyite / Bennite wing of the Labour Party).

Far-left only if you're infuriated by anything to the left of Ghengis Khan.
Original post by Kibalchich
Especially if the union is very effective like the RMT. Unless you're prepared to forgo the benefits the union negotiates.

As for funding the labour party, everyone has the option to not pay the political fund.


Moreover, RMT isn't affliated to the Labour Party any more.
Original post by MostUncivilised
Exactly. Excellent comment.

Then again, a lot of people aren't particularly aware of the difference between revolutionary socialism / Marxism-Leninism and social democracy and parliamentary socialism (like the old Callaghan / Healeyite / Bennite wing of the Labour Party).

Far-left only if you're infuriated by anything to the left of Ghengis Khan.


Indeed, when revolutionary situations do arise the unions usually try to restrain and hold back angry workers.
Reply 27
Original post by Kibalchich
Especially if the union is very effective like the RMT. Unless you're prepared to forgo the benefits the union negotiates.

As for funding the labour party, everyone has the option to not pay the political fund.


The union is effective -it'll end up fast forwarding plans to bring in driverless trains! And reducing them to just PSAs like on the DLR and reducing pay accordingly especially ad they will no longer be able to cripple London by striking

Effectively they will end up in a similar way to the miners-sacked in favour of machines
(edited 11 years ago)
I already have joined a union. I joined when I was working for a well-known pub chain that was throwing its weight around and threatening to sack me when I said I wasn't going to hand over biometric data to them. They soon changed their tune when I said I'd joined a union, so I've remained a member ever since.

Original post by a729
Effectively they will end up in a similar way to the miners-sacked in favour of machines


The miners weren't sacked in favour of machines, they were sacked in favour of closing the pits and introducing intergenerational unemployment and social problems into towns and villages that had previously been centred around the pit and had functioned quite well.
Reply 29
Original post by Kibalchich
Yet no doubt you'd happily accept better terms and conditions won by unions. We have a word for people like you.


Yes.

The primary purpose of a union is to engage in voluntary collective bargaining and this is something i do not object to however because governments now protect employees when they strike this has meant that unions have become militant and attempt to extort rather than negotiate better working conditions.
Reply 30
Original post by MostUncivilised
What government protection is giving to strikes? You do realise people who go on strike don't get paid and can't get social security.


Unions cannot be sued for a variety of things and employees cannot be sacked for striking. If you allowed people to be sacked then unions would stick to collective bargaining and not striking.
I'm a member, I work in the NHS and even though I'm not a fan of unions there's a lot of uncertainty with trust restructuring. I left my previous job because my contract was being changed (against my will) so I'd have been working nights and unable to study at college. The unions slowed that to ensure the shifts were fair and that people won't suddenly see a massive wage drop as they lose overtime.
Original post by MostUncivilised
What government protection is giving to strikes? You do realise people who go on strike don't get paid and can't get social security.


Unions reimburse people who go on strikes and the government can't fire people for doing so.
Reply 33
Original post by Rakas21
Yes.

The primary purpose of a union is to engage in voluntary collective bargaining and this is something i do not object to however because governments now protect employees when they strike this has meant that unions have become militant and attempt to extort rather than negotiate better working conditions.


What use is collective bargaining with no leverage? If you want workers not to strike then you also have to have employers who can't sack.
Reply 34
No. They're selfish, impractical and everything they claim to be fighting against. As bad as big business imo.
Reply 35
Original post by Rakas21
Unions cannot be sued for a variety of things and employees cannot be sacked for striking. If you allowed people to be sacked then unions would stick to collective bargaining and not striking.


I get the impression you have little experience of working.
Reply 36
Negged for having a perfectly reasonable alternative opinion :rolleyes: :biggrin: For all the people on here who preach freedom of speech and tolerance you well err aren't very tolerant.
Reply 37
Original post by Kibalchich
I get the impression you have little experience of working.


I'm a 'mature student', i chose to work for 4 years after i left school.
Reply 38
Original post by Rakas21
I'm a 'mature student', i chose to work for 4 years after i left school.


Well you give the impression of extreme naivety.
Reply 39
Original post by LeBuche
Negged for having a perfectly reasonable alternative opinion :rolleyes: :biggrin: For all the people on here who preach freedom of speech and tolerance you well err aren't very tolerant.


Maybe if you make a reasoned argument and not just meaningless assertions?

Quick Reply

Latest