what advice would you give RMT unioin

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[grantzer]

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.

Any company that could make money with less customers will probably go with less customers. If a company found a way to make more money with no customers, it would do it.

Because companies have not found a way to do that,customers are needed, but since covid especially, companies have let their customers know, through falling standards, that they do not care about them. Since before covid really,but covid accelerated it.

Hospitality have reduced staff,which reduces the customer experience in hotels,bars,restaurants and fast food outlets. Less staff = longer waiting times on everything.

Look at dens,where we have a manky ground,dirty seats,graffiti everywhere and a general sense of being ignored,unless it's ST renewal time.

Airports have less staff,waiting times go up. Petrol companies show contempt for customers every day.
Supermarkets have self service checkouts,removing any human contact for the shopper,and, if I am any example,annoying customers who are now doing the shops job for free.

Any company that finds a way to improve profits will go for it,whether its good for the customer or not.

If you want what they have,you will still want it, food,travel, housing, whatever. The experience of getting it might not be good,but customers now endure the bad experience to get what they want. Not everyone,but enough of them.

But no company really cares about the customer experience,as long as they maximise the bottom line