The Student Room Group

Would you join a union?

Scroll to see replies

I joined one of the retail Unions.. purely because against a big company like Tesco.. you have 0 chance of putting any sort of claim in without a big Union backing you. It cost me £8 a month.. £96 a year.. I just hope I never need to use them.. but it's nice to know I have somebody to get advice from.
Original post by Steevee
Except much of the time 'scabs' infact had nothing to with the unions before the strike.

Others still may have to work in order to keep food on the table, and are simply not willing to empoverish their families for the sake of an industrial dispute.

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? It's funny really, people like you are just the same as the people you villify. You are two sides of the same coin and you will never recognise it.


Then they'll be relinquishing all the rights won by unions won't they. They'll be working 12 hour days with one day off a year for subsistence wages and no sick pay. Won't they?
Original post by Democracy
But, but, but you have the liberty to starve in that case! It was a choice which you made totally freely. A genuine free market is all about teh liberty! :rolleyes:


Original post by Kibalchich
It always comes down to the freedom to starve. That's why so called "libertarians" are despised as the parasites that they are by most folk.


I'm straying a little off-topic here, but as someone who would consider himself a libertarian, to me freedom and liberty is about choice. Given that as humans we need to eat, not eating isn't an option, so if you're stuck in a position of either terrible working conditions for little money or not eating then you don't have a choice. As such, the idea that all libertarians believe that the 'freedom or liberty to starve' is actually liberty is, well, wrong.

I agree that workers need protection from exploitation, but I'm not convinced that the trade union movement is the best way of achieving that aim. A resident's income funded by a LVT (a tax on the unimproved value of land) would give everyone a reasonable amount to live on, negating the ability for businesses to exploit workers fear of needing to work or starve. Workers would be free to turn down unacceptable working conditions and thus employers would be incentivised to offer better pay and conditions, or they would be unable to fill their vacancies. In return, businesses would be getting a committed workforce and because the RI would be funded by the LVT, we could reduce taxes on businesses so they can keep more of their profits. Everybody wins.

[mini rant]Of course this would need a wholesale change in our political system though, because I can't see any of our current crap crop of politicians attempting to put anything like this into practice. The status quo suits them all far too much. [/mini rant]

********************

On the original question though, I don't know. I've got nothing against trade unions in principle (freedom of association and all that), but I can't stand the political rhetoric from the likes of Bob Crow, ect.

I used to have a NUS Extra card though, if that counts?
For those who are anti union, what's your opinion on the likes of the CBI or IoD?
Original post by Kibalchich
For those who are anti union, what's your opinion on the likes of the CBI or IoD?


Far be it for me to answer on their behalf... but one would presume unbridled admiration.

In the case of the CBI, it's industries and companies co-operating on a consensual and voluntary basis to improve their situation and business environment. Of course, when workers co-operate on a consensual and voluntary basis to improve the price of their labour and better their conditions, it somehow becomes antithetical to the principles of the free market and freedom generally.

Naturally, this leads to the conclusion that the rhetoric about freedom is actually code for cutting the wages and conditions of workers, and that there is no substance to their claims to be in favour of voluntary and free association.
Original post by sugarmouse
I had mentioned earlier in this thread, I WAS in a union-a rep was present with me in the disciplinary, the verdict of which was my being dismissed.


On the basis of gross misconduct? To claim that is a clear stretch.

You have made me think though-perhaps I have a case. I'm aware that failure to call in sick on the morning of an absence was listed in my contract though.


It could certainly be listed in your contract, though even if the contract listed it as a condition of the contract (i.e. a fundamental term for which breach would constitute a repudiation), I very much doubt that would pass muster when construed in accordance with the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

Even if I do have a case, I'm uncertain if I would want to go through with it-I KNOW how bad that sounds-when workers fail to stand up for themselves, it reinforces the consensus that companies can treat us badly.


How long ago was it? It might be that it has passed the expiry period for action in the employment tribunal, though it may still be open to take an action in the county courts. For example, making an assessment of your loss and then going through "Money Claim Online", where you can issue a claim (previously known as a writ) online for a £35 fee.

It would be worthwhile carefully reading up on the law prior to making such a claim, taking some advice, and ensuring your claim form and particulars are very specific as to the basis of the claim and the amounts, and how you calculated those amounts.

I was a very good worker for them-often went above and beyond what was asked of me, put in extra hours-used my own car to pick up clients etc.


The way they treated you is rather typical of mediocre little fascists who think that everyone is after their job, and for whom the most that could be said is that they turn up on time.
Original post by MostUncivilised
On the basis of gross misconduct? To claim that is a clear stretch.



It could certainly be listed in your contract, though even if the contract listed it as a condition of the contract (i.e. a fundamental term for which breach would constitute a repudiation), I very much doubt that would pass muster when construed in accordance with the Unfair Contract Terms Act.



How long ago was it? It might be that it has passed the expiry period for action in the employment tribunal, though it may still be open to take an action in the county courts. For example, making an assessment of your loss and then going through "Money Claim Online", where you can issue a claim (previously known as a writ) online for a £35 fee.

It would be worthwhile carefully reading up on the law prior to making such a claim, taking some advice, and ensuring your claim form and particulars are very specific as to the basis of the claim and the amounts, and how you calculated those amounts.



The way they treated you is rather typical of mediocre little fascists who think that everyone is after their job, and for whom the most that could be said is that they turn up on time.


Thank you for your help :smile: xx
I was sacked in April (I THINK, I still have the letter and emails from them etc so I can find out for sure and I will do later today).

And yes, you're right. American company. They were terrible, not just with me either-it seems the treatment of staff was more to do with who was sleeping with who and who went out and got drunk with whom etc-I was very good at my job and the staff all liked me-the management and people above me were like a bunch of playground bullies.

I am self-employed now and very happy, I've no upset regards that I do not work there any longer, but the way they did it-yes I am still angry with them and they shouldn't get away with it.
Whether they would do in a trial though is another story. I'm going to look into it :smile:

I paid £16 per month for GMB-I have to say I cannot fault them, my rep was a lovely man and very sympathetic and very good in the meeting.
They blatantly lied in the meeting. I protested to be brought to disciplinary without an investigatory first, and they told me that they'd asked me to go to an investigatory and I'd refused. This is a complete and utter lie.
They DID call me into a meeting which I said I would go to only with a rep. But I know what that meeting was about-and it was something totally unrelated. Not an investigatory for this issue of them wanting to dismiss me-it was about a conversation I had had with a member of staff I supervised.They just used my exercising my rights-to their advantage.
My boss was lovely, fought my corner right to the end and for this she was also chastised.They didn't even tell her that I had been sacked. For weeks after, until I contacted her once everything had blown over in my head, she was led to believe that I was still off sick.
YES!

My part-time job is swimming teaching. At the moment there are so many changes - a push towards greater professionalism, including licensing etc.

Yet in some instances some swimming teachers are seeing paycuts and cuts to their contracts. So yes an effective union would be great for them. I'm ok as of now, but it would be good reassurance!
Reply 148
Avatar for Steevee
Steevee
15
Original post by Kibalchich
Then they'll be relinquishing all the rights won by unions won't they. They'll be working 12 hour days with one day off a year for subsistence wages and no sick pay. Won't they?


No, why should they?

If a Union 'secures' a blanket pay rise, why would a non-union member turn that down? That would be madness, just as it would be odd for an unemployed person not to claim the benefits they are entitled to. Come down off your hypocritical high horse.
It would depend on who I worked for.

If I worked for Royal Mail then yes but if I worked for Burger King then no.

There is no point in joining a union with no power in your actual workplace.
Original post by Steevee
No, why should they?

If a Union 'secures' a blanket pay rise, why would a non-union member turn that down? That would be madness, just as it would be odd for an unemployed person not to claim the benefits they are entitled to. Come down off your hypocritical high horse.


Why should someone benefit from other people's effort, money, from other people putting their necks on the line? Why should people benefit when they're too cowardly and miserly to contribute? Is that a serious question?
Original post by Scumbaggio
It would depend on who I worked for.

If I worked for Royal Mail then yes but if I worked for Burger King then no.

There is no point in joining a union with no power in your actual workplace.


You can unionise.
Reply 152
Avatar for politixx
politixx
It depends if I have to pay or not. If I have to pay and gain the benefits without being in it then no.
Original post by politixx
It depends if I have to pay or not. If I have to pay and gain the benefits without being in it then no.


So you'd rather be a scrounger and a parasite?
Reply 154
Avatar for politixx
politixx
Original post by Kibalchich
So you'd rather be a scrounger and a parasite?


It's called being smart.
Original post by politixx
It's called being smart.


Its called being a parasite.
Reply 156
Avatar for politixx
politixx
Original post by Kibalchich
Its called being a parasite.


So making money now = being a parasite?
Original post by politixx
So making money now = being a parasite?


Parasiting off others = being a parasite.
Reply 158
Avatar for politixx
politixx
Original post by Kibalchich
Parasiting off others = being a parasite.


Why should you have to pay them to do something they benefit from anyway as they also get a pay rise?
Original post by politixx
Why should you have to pay them to do something they benefit from anyway as they also get a pay rise?


Wtf are you on about?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you