what advice would you give RMT unioin

[Deeranged]

[QUOTE=jdfc;40064443]

Come on, do you honestly believe someone working for a multinational company could just roll up at the headquarters and speak to the head honcho and ask for his own personal pay and conditions,

It’s sad you were let down by your union, but remember all the conditions we have now were fought and won by unions, you might not want to accept that but it’s true

Let down very badly by the union to be more accurate.

[petermackie]

[QUOTE=Deeranged;40064411]

I was a union member once for about two years. I stopped paying fees because I felt they were not representing me.

I now work in a job where my terms and conditions are miles better than they were back then, and I mean miles better. I got those conditions by individual negotiation and without the help of any union and specifically without the help of any union fat cat. So from my perspective your argument that 'without unions we'd all be working to terms and conditions similar to Amazon and Hermes' is total nonsense.

Get rid of your unions and start looking after yourself, it's the only way to go. **** the collective - we're not The Borg after all.

[deecom]

i started working in the sixties, at that time Saturday morning was part included in your working week.
i joined the Electrical Trades Union, the communists had infiltrated the ETU,and the changes were dramatic.
First trade to get the 40 hour week, if you worked Saturday morning, 8-12 you then got time and a half, large increase in wages, working at height money, travel expenses, and travel time if you were working out of town, dirty money on old installations etc and much more'

also at that time, safety on many installations was appalling, and you had provide your own safety gear, but the one thing that changed the safety aspect was the 1974 HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ACT, brought in by the LABOUR GOVERNMENT, witch then put the onus on the employers to provide PPE and update safety in the workplace.

I find it sad to see that many of the many of the overtime rates and shift rates etc have gradually eroded and now you have zero hour contracts, and other cheap labour systems.

As an aside, being a union member i never had much time for MAGGIE THATCHER, but she did one good thing for employees.
Before 1984 , if you worked for a company, you could not own shares for that company, she changed that, and many people benefited from that, employees of gas board post office etc.

[islaydarkblue]

i started working in the sixties, at that time Saturday morning was part included in your working week.
i joined the Electrical Trades Union, the communists had infiltrated the ETU,and the changes were dramatic.
First trade to get the 40 hour week, if you worked Saturday morning, 8-12 you then got time and a half, large increase in wages, working at height money, travel expenses, and travel time if you were working out of town, dirty money on old installations etc and much more'

also at that time, safety on many installations was appalling, and you had provide your own safety gear, but the one thing that changed the safety aspect was the 1974 HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ACT, brought in by the LABOUR GOVERNMENT, witch then put the onus on the employers to provide PPE and update safety in the workplace.

I find it sad to see that many of the many of the overtime rates and shift rates etc have gradually eroded and now you have zero hour contracts, and other cheap labour systems.

As an aside, being a union member i never had much time for MAGGIE THATCHER, but she did one good thing for employees.
Before 1984 , if you worked for a company, you could not own shares for that company, she changed that, and many people benefited from that, employees of gas board post office etc.

Maggie Thatcher also brought profit sharing schemes which worked very well until Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer scrapped them and replaced them with bonus schemes which ultimately led to the banking crisis in 2008.

[BCram]

Been surprised by the lack of support for trades unions. I didn't think it was a political problem, it always seemed to me to be a business problem and the objective I had assumed of both management and the unions was to make the business bigger and better.

I may be naive in hoping that the rail strikes end and the railway workers can sort out their differences. I think the unions know that their industry is in big trouble and that trouble is systemic rather than a short term problem of the level of pay. Media just love a row, and anything that causes trouble for the government of the day is meat and drink to them. It isn't helping and we should be much more concerned about the work from home attitude that seems to be very firmly entrenched. city centres are dying and this suits the Green agenda.

[grantzer]

Been surprised by the lack of support for trades unions. I didn't think it was a political problem, it always seemed to me to be a business problem and the objective I had assumed of both management and the unions was to make the business bigger and better.

I may be naive in hoping that the rail strikes end and the railway workers can sort out their differences. I think the unions know that their industry is in big trouble and that trouble is systemic rather than a short term problem of the level of pay. Media just love a row, and anything that causes trouble for the government of the day is meat and drink to them. It isn't helping and we should be much more concerned about the work from home attitude that seems to be very firmly entrenched. city centres are dying and this suits the Green agenda.

The objectives of business is to make more money,the objective of the union is to look after its members. If a business can make more money and it means less customers,it will probably do that. If a union improves conditions for workers by having less customers,it will probably do that. Occasionally business and unions can find a way to grow a business,make more money and improve conditions, but it is very rare.

But no business does anything if their is no money in it for them, and usually,no union does anything if it makes conditions worse for its members.

Customers are generally irrelevant to both sides.

[Deeranged]

The objectives of business is to make more money,the objective of the union is to look after its members. If a business can make more money and it means less customers,it will probably do that. If a union improves conditions for workers by having less customers,it will probably do that. Occasionally business and unions can find a way to grow a business,make more money and improve conditions, but it is very rare.

But no business does anything if their is no money in it for them, and usually,no union does anything if it makes conditions worse for its members.

Customers are generally irrelevant to both sides.

Without customers there's no company. Without the company there's no point in the union.

I disagree that customers can be considered irrelevant by both but are in fact pretty much essential to both their existences. It could be that customer requirements are considered a lower priority though.

[BCram]

Without customers there's no company. Without the company there's no point in the union.

I disagree that customers can be considered irrelevant by both but are in fact pretty much essential to both their existences. It could be that customer requirements are considered a lower priority though.

I think the customer is forgotten in this rail dispute. The franchise holders have been underinvesting in their rolling stock for years, apparently, and the unions are unable to make the case that they are on the side of the commuter because their stike action harms their customers.

Like apathy at Dens commuters are looking for an alternative and working From Home seems to be that alternative. Like watching the Dees on TV or doing something else instead of going to the match.

Being smart and scoring points off the goernment and the rail franchise owners isn't doing anything to win back those customers who have chosen or been encouraged to work from home.

[eric_sinclair]

I think Mick Lynch is coming across very well in the media as he comes up against the usual nonsense about letting veterans and doctors down etc.This is the same government who clapped nhs staff then offered them 1% and who wont help veterans themselves but play that card when it suits to get the public against the strikers.
They will never get all they want but hopefully some sort of compromise can be reached.As the union boss said if a 2 day strike costs the country 200 million,then his members are worth more than is being offered.

[BCram]

I think Mick Lynch is coming across very well in the media as he comes up against the usual nonsense about letting veterans and doctors down etc.This is the same government who clapped nhs staff then offered them 1% and who wont help veterans themselves but play that card when it suits to get the public against the strikers.
They will never get all they want but hopefully some sort of compromise can be reached.As the union boss said if a 2 day strike costs the country 200 million,then his members are worth more than is being offered.

I think if the current government had tried to instigate "clapping for the NHS" it would never have got off the ground. I thought it was started by an individual and lead by the media. It took off and "Governemtn2 had no option but to go along with the gesture.