Would you join a union?

Wtf are you on about?

You pay the union heads money to do stuff to get pay rises. They also work for the company so get a pay rise as well so why should they be paid EVEN MORE to do it?

"union heads"? What are you on about?

Unions have full timers who work for the union. Workplaces have union reps (aka shop stewards) who don't work for the union but represent the workers in their company. Reps will get advice and legal support from union full timers whose job it is to understand employment law. Union reps have several roles in the union - to represent workers in grievance and disciplinary hearings but also to negotiate with management over contractual issues (that's if there is a collective bargaining agreement with the union). Union reps do not get paid by the union. They negotiate on behalf of their members in their workplace. If there is a collective bargaining agreement, this means that the employer cannot make any contractual changes without consulting their workforce via union reps. This means that the whole workforce benefits from union representation, even employees who are not members. Benefitting from other's work and payment of union subs and willingness to take industrial action while not being prepared to do so yourself is parasitism.

It sounds like a fixed system in favour of the unions over the companies looks like we need to change employment laws.

In what way?

You are saying a company cannot make contract changes without discussing it with the union that is wrong. The company should discuss it with them as it is better for both sides if they get along but the company should not be obliged by law to do so.

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.

"union heads"? What are you on about?

the likes of arthur Scargill ( life president and head of the politburo of the NUM) and Bob Crow ...



the problem is the likes of Arthur and Bob have damaged the view of unions in the eyes of many people , also the way in which the Trots in many unions want constant struggle and revolution against the bourgoisee

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?

Why should anyone recieve benefits by that logic?

Why should anyone benefit from the effort of anyone else then?

I guess if you're too cowardly to defend yourself and others then you should be left to the mercy of criminals?

Seems logical, or not. What you're arguing from is moral indignation, not reason. Don't let your emotions and sensibilities run away with you.

Were you drunk when you wrote that? If you can't see what's wrong with your logic then i conclude you're drunk or stupid (or both).

See, hypocrisy. I point out examples that by your logic should not exist? Although I suppose you'll try to spin some hypocritical web around it. That's what people like you do.

If you really can't see the difference between a benefits system that everyone pays into, a police service that everyone pays into and scabs parasiting on union benefits that only members have paid into, then what I can do to change that? I can only conclude you're a few sandwiches short.

If you really can't see the difference between a benefits system that everyone pays into, a police service that everyone pays into and scabs parasiting on union benefits that only members have paid into, then what I can do to change that? I can only conclude you're a few sandwiches short.

as it appears are you

a 'scab' is a union member who does not strike in a legally conducted strike ... some people extend this to anyone who crosses a picket line, regardless of whether they are a union member, member of another union or not a union member.

'freeloading' off collective bargaining is not being a scab

And yet the term 'scab' is used to describe anyone who works as a strike-breaker, regardless of whether they are part of the Union.

Equally, with the likes of the benefits system, the majority of people that take the most out will never pay their way, just a different sort of scab eh? Hell, a lot of them would even to disagree to doing what little they could. Right scabby eh?

And then of course, a scab is a scab ignores that persons' situation. So if you were to say 'Oh, X can't work because of Y, they deserve Z benefits' how is that any different to 'A needs to keep working because of B so he can't participate in C.' It isn't of course, but you seem to have trouble with that concept.

I can only conclude you're a bit dense,