Would you join a union?

I'll not hunt for corrupt union members in the news. My sources are my farther, grandfather and uncle. All men that worked their way up from the bottom, all men that were involved in unions, all men that removed themselves from them insofar as they could because those at the heads of the Unions were just as self-serving as the corporation men they villified.

And I do not support such political parties, so why would I in any way support organisations that support them if I need not?

Various Labour members speak at various union confrences, a lot of Labour members and Union members have links to the party and the likes of the SWP.

Derogatory terms seem to be fine according to you? And yet your sort often have a problem when people like me call a chav a chav, the underclass the underclass, the scrounger the scrounger etc.

Why would they turn down a payrise given to everyone on the basis that they didn't want to engage in industrial action to start with?

For those TSRers who are working, would you or have you considered joining a union? If you have considered it and decided not to, what did you consider the biggest obstacle?

Aren't you often automatically a member of a union? Or am I massively misunderstanding how it works? Just because when teachers used to go on strike at school they were usually all part of the same union.

No, there's isn't and hasn't ever been automatic union membership.

The reason they're part of the same union is that collectively they have more power when they speak with a single voice. If you had 100 teachers unions, they'd be completely ineffective.

The idea is collective action and solidarity, working with our colleagues to secure better pay and conditions, a safer workplace, and dignity for all.

Hmmm. Your father, grandfather and uncle all had the same problem in the union. Maybe the problem wasn't the union, maybe it was them. Maybe they tried to use the union for their own ends and were irritated by being rebuffed, and so blamed the union branch secs and leaders. Maybe they rubbed people up the wrong way, and were bitter about not being elected to the top of the union.



Will you willingly now forswear ever taking paid holidays, paid sick leave, etc etc? Or do you just scab off what the unions have done for you, then say it's got nothing to do with you?



SWP? What are you talking about? It sounds like you're almost completely ignorant of the modern union movement.

As for speaking at Labour conferences, you'd prefer unions didn't try to influence the labour party on behalf of their members, and otherwise do everything they can to obtain the best possible deal for their members?

Of course, if they didn't you'd say they were lazy and self-serving, and not doing all they could. Sounds like you have a massive chip on your shoulder from your father and grandfather being overwhelmingly rejected by the ordinary members of the unions they tried to take over control of.



Why should I care what you call the underclass? That only reflects poorly on you.



Given? You think payrises are given away by employers?

You're more naive than I could ever have possibly imagined.

So if you're a teacher and a school employs you, is there generally one union which represents that school, for example they are all members of NUT, and that would be the union you'd be expected to join if you were going to join one?

No, my Grandfather worked his way through the industrial and plastics industry, he was very involved in the Unions to start with, however as he moved into management he attempted to be a middle man for both sides, to compromise, and ended up with no end of abuse from the union men, who had only a 'Them and us' attitude. Such are his experiences in short. My father made his way up the Union ladder, until he was rep for more than a single branch of his work, however, he found that the other people at his level were just as corrupt and self-serving as the people you villify.

Such a typical response. And such a pathetic one. I've never denied the Unions had their place, have their place. Typical 'Us and them' attitude of your sort. I'm guessing you disagree with a lot of things Britons of the past have done, will you now give up anything related to such deeds? I doubt it, stop being such a child.

I'm sure you know who the SWP are?

Dear me, are you quite thick? I said there are affiliations, you deny this, then admit it and try to make it a point against me? I'll not be part of organisations that have affiliations with political organisations I disagree with if I can help it. IS that so difficult for you to comprehend? My gosh, you are an angry little socialist aren't you? It's kind of cute from the outside.

You are such a hypocrite it's almost funny

I'm sorry, does it appeal better to your sensibilities if I say 'the payrise the Unions took!' Which, is exactly the same thing, but if you want to be pandered to, I guess I will for now. Like I said, rather childish, but there you go.

And a scrounger is a scrounger is a scrounger. A Chav is a Chav is a Chav.

And then there's the whole point about free choice, in that the 'scab' may not want to strike, they may want to continue to earn money, they may want nothing to do with your strike. Just because you want to strike does not mean everyone must, typical entitlement complex from your sort.

Or you could use a bit of common sense and if you think you've been dismissed unlawfully and consult a private solicitor or even the citizens advice bureau. I know people who have sued companies for it, you don't need to be an expert in employment law to figure out when something has gone wrong.

Private solicitors cost lots of money.

Anyway the main function of unions is as collective strength.

That remains to be seen. There is always more than one side to a story, I very much doubt you know both in this case. I find it equally likely that he vilifies his fellow union reps as corrupt because they didn't vote him Branch Secretary, and stormed out in a huff.



What on earth are you blathering on about? I'm not sure it's clear even to you.



I do. Not one major union in the UK is affiliated to the SWP. So one wonders why you're blathering on about revolutionary socialists when that has nothing to do with the proposition at hand. I suppose you think you'll score some point if you dishonestly associate the unions with the SWP in the minds of those who read this thread.



It seems to me that you're the one who is angry. And very much angry in the way that is so typical of the "left behind" lower middle class social conservatives who think they're part of the system/establishment. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Uncle Tom is the turn of phrase that comes to mind.



Laugh it up, chuckles. One day you'll realise the joke's on you (or maybe you won't... maybe you'll be a cranky DM-reading joke your whole life)



Again, what are you blathering on about? Such is the your lack of precision and facility with the English language, it's next to impossible to take anything from what you write.

If you join a union you agree to abide by any collective decisions made. This is called democracy. If there are moves towards industrial action you get plenty of opportunities to make your views known. You get a vote in any ballots. If the majority decision is to strike YOU ABIDE BY IT. Its called democracy and solidarity. If you then choose to stab your colleagues in the back, being called a scab is getting off lightly.

You can be sure that if the strike achieves its objectives, scabs won't be repudiating any of the things won.

So your claim would be no Union members have any links to the SWP? I realise that isn't a direct, organisation level affiliation

but I personally know people who associate with the SWP and UAF and are part of Unison. The links are there on a certain level.

And if you join the Union at the time, then see action you disagree with try to stop but cannot, and you cannot abide that action, you are an awful person?

I'm glad you concede this important point.



So? If a member of UKIP or the Conservative Party also happened to be a Nazi, does that make UKIP or the Conservatives Nazis? You're putting the cart before the horse mate.



There's a simple solution to this. Don't join a union and don't accept the payrises and betterment of conditions they negotiate. Somehow, I doubt you would forbear to accept a payrise.

But if there are a great many links between a great many members

As I said before though, I see myself more middle management

I've always seen the potential for far more positive engagement with management mind. If you have a majority of employees signed up, management should look to you to engage with members in proactive consultation. You've persuaded them to sign up to your organisation - they believe what you believe. If trade unions were more proactive in their consultation and representation, there's huge potential for driving forwards work environments

Plus, trade unions are fairly big entities when you look at their bases - they have expert staff who probably know more than your average solicitor on a lot of work issues.

The problem is when only 10% of eligible employees are members, a simple majority vote for a particular action, then only half of members take up the action, then it demonstrates your ineffectiveness.

I think there's a bit of a misconception about that unions and management don't get along. I'm the Unison Branch Sec at the university I work for, and we have an excellent working relationship with management. Clearly, we disagree on a lot of issues, but we work through these with negotiation, discussion, sometimes striking if it's a fundamental issue, but always come to some kind of accommodation.

In terms of consultation with own members, again I think you're operating under a bit of a misconception. Perhaps that might change when you become involved with an industrial/working union, rather than a student union.

Consdering there aren't "a great many links", then we can safely disregard your argument in its entirety.



I certainly wonder whether other people see you the same way. I suspect not, but I'll leave that for your colleagues judgement.

As it is, quite a few of the directors and heads at the university for which I work are members of the union. It's usually "left behind" right-wing little toilers in customer service roles who believe they're carrying a marshal's baton in their knapsack, and that the university will somehow care or reward them for their moral cowardice, that refuse to join the union. Much like you, one might think.

I know of someone in a very similar situation; they tried to sack him on the basis of failing to call in sick (when, in fact, sometimes an employee can't due to their illness and are often protected under the Equality Act 2010)... they couldn't come to an agreement, but his employer paid him out £4,000 in a compromise settlement.

Your former employer behaved unforgivably, considering that failing to call in sick is not a fundamental and/or repudiatory breach of contract. Failing to call in sick is not gross misconduct / fundamental and repudiatory breach.

Only with the support of a union are most people able to call an employer on their unlawful and immoral attempts to sack people in these situations. Your employer probably acted unlawfully. Most of us don't have the time to be an employment law expert, so an employer will walk all over us.

Unions are the only answer.