[Closed] Union membership down by half

to party??

to get into your cold heart??

5.98 million sounds like a lot.

i would argue that they are even more relevant today.

My union were more concerned with the rights of every other nation rather than the rights of the workers that they were supposed to represent.

So for that reason i'm out!

Yes. I'm a member of a union, and I would strike to preserve my rights. A more relevant question is, why wouldn't you want to preserve yours?.

Save me/my job when I was looking like being sacked , best £12 per month insurance I've ever had , I agree they do go a bit far sometimes but company's constantly push for more and more for less and less . At least it's someone to fight your corner .

And I'd also wager that there are half the amount of manufacturing jobs in the uk today, as there were in 1980, for instance. It's on the BBC, it must be true....

Unions need to step up to the mark, as do their membership.

Everything has been too easy for too long.

Someone has to hold the government to account if we don't then we will get shat on big time. They will always do the best for their rich cronie mates.

[quote=Nobeerinthefridge ]And I'd also wager that there are half the amount of manufacturing jobs in the uk today, as there were in 1980, for instance. It's on the BBC, it must be true....
It's not just manufacturing companies that have unions.

I'm in a union and have been since 1976
I would - and have been on - strike but not recently as I now work in a non-union place

[quote=stevewhyte ]
Someone has to hold the government to account
That's what the "opposition party" is for. See, the idea is that the party who gets the most votes across the whole of the voting population gets the most power, the second most votes gets to "hold them to account". That's called parliamentary democracy and it ensures that disaffected workers in key industries don't have an inordinate amount of power to hold the rest of the country to ransom.

If enough people are unhappy with the way things are being run, they only have to vote - in a general election - for someone else. The fact that this does not happen tells you all you need to know about the general feeling of the population of the UK.

Now - if you want to argue that unions are beneficial in negotiating with employers, then I'd tend to agree with you.

That's what the "opposition party" is for. See, the idea is that the party who gets the most votes across the whole of the voting population gets the most power, the second most votes, gets to "hold them to account". That's called democracy and it ensures that disaffected workers in key industries don't have an inordinate amount of power to hold the rest of the country to ransom.

As a example, the health unions opposition to the government's health reforms which they have no mandate to implement is perfectly democratic. Democracy isn't just simply restricted to placing a cross on a piece to paper every years, even though some people would prefer it to be so. Democracy is an ongoing exercise which involves participation and representation outside Parliament.

Unions were necessary when workers had no laws or rights to protect them. Now they are simply not needed as much any more. I've never been in one and never will. I'd never strike for any reason ever, it serves no purpose as far as I can see.

Unions were necessary when workers had no laws or rights to protect them.

A bit of a contradiction there. Trade unions are totally useless in an environment where workers have no rights, they only start to become effective when workers establish basic rights.

druidh - Member

to get into your cold heart??

Oh dear.

ernie_lynch - Member

Trade unions are totally useless in an environment where workers have no rights, they only start to become effective when workers establish basic rights.

History says no.

druidh - Member

That's what the "opposition party" is for. See, the idea is that the party who gets the most votes across the whole of the voting population gets the most power, the second most votes gets to "hold them to account". That's called parliamentary democracy and it ensures that disaffected workers in key industries don't have an inordinate amount of power to hold the rest of the country to ransom.

But that's not strictly true, is it? It's based constituency seats, not purely on the amount of votes cast.

History says no.

History very much says yes.

[quote=bigblackshed ]
But that's not strictly true, is it? It's based constituency seats, not purely on the amount of votes cast.
True - but it's reasonably close. In 2010, it took around 35,000 votes to get a Tory MP but only £33,000 to elect a Labour one.

That's what the "opposition party" is for. See, the idea is that the party who gets the most votes across the whole of the voting population gets the most

Funniest thing I have read on here for a long time.

I am in a union and have been on strike to preserve my rights at work. Though even better down here in Oz, instead of all-out strike, unions can place work-bans on certain tasks (such as admin etc). What's quite sad is that my employer didn't seem to care two hoots if we were at work or not, but was very upset when we voted not to reconcile our credit cards or log our effort to projects.

ernie_lynch - Member

History very much says yes.

Not at all. Labour organisations were involved in gaining even the earliest worker's rights. Not least of which, the right to be in a union.

Would probably still have kids working down the mines at 12 if the Tories had their way.

6 day week anyone.

Working wage only for the select few.

Something is not right when you have a full time professional job, work hard and still struggle to earn enough to keep your head above water. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!

My last experience of a union was when the demanded a 10% including unconditional bonus payments at times when nobody was getting more than 2. Then threatened to strike over it. When I was made staff I didn't bother joining. So far out of touch with reality it was untrue.

Not at all. Labour organisations were involved in gaining even the earliest worker's rights. Not least of which, the right to be in a union.

Yes very much so. Trade unions weren't able to be effective until basic worker's rights had been established. The Tolpuddle Martyrs were transported to Australia you know, which wasn't quite what they had in mind when they tried to establish a minimum 10 shilling per week wage.

I repeat, PP is wrong to suggest that trade unions were useful when workers had no rights - they are pretty useless in that sort of situation.

Which probably is one explanation why TU numbers are half what they were in 1980. Today, unlike back in 1980, the UK has the worse employment protection of any western industrialised country, which doesn't create the ideal conditions where trade unions can operate effectively.

druidh - Member
bigblackshed  » 
But that's not strictly true, is it? It's based constituency seats, not purely on the amount of votes cast.
True - but it's reasonably close. In 2010, it took around 35,000 votes to get a Tory MP but only £33,000 to elect a Labour one.

Nice bit of editing. Now add in the Lib Dim stat: Votes cast: 6.8 million. Seats: 57. Votes per seat: 119,000.

Not really a level playing field.

Note: I wouldn't vote for them, just trying to create some balance. And I'm a union member and I have and would strike again.

[quote=bigblackshed ]
Nice bit of editing. Now add in the Lib Dim stat: Votes cast: 6.8 million. Seats: 57. Votes per seat: 119,000.
Not really a level playing field.
Also true - but our (UK) system (Government and official Opposition)is really based on the largest two parties, hence why I only mentioned the Labour and Conservative votes. If you check again what I wrote, you'll see that's why I only mentioned these two parties. Either way, the party that polled the most votes formed the government.

ernie_lynch - Member

Yes very much so. Trade unions weren't able to be effective until basic worker's rights had been established.

By all means keep repeating yourself; but since unions and other labour movements were key to gaining those basic rights, clearly they [i]were[/i] effective. The first job was to create the environment in which they could work.

If enough people are unhappy with the way things are being run, they only have to vote - in a general election - for someone else.

Yes if course trade unions were key to gaining basic workers rights - who said they weren't ? 🙄

Why don't you read the thread properly if you want to comment ?

One final time. PP said :

Unions were necessary when workers had no laws or rights to protect them. Now they are simply not needed as much any more.

To which I answered :

A bit of a contradiction there. Trade unions are totally useless in an environment where workers have no rights, they only start to become effective when workers establish basic rights.

See ? I'm saying that "they only start to become effective when workers establish basic rights". And yet for some bizarre reason you want to argue against that, despite you yourself saying "The first job was to create the environment in which they could work".

I think you probably just want to argue with me so unless you make a worthwhile point I think I'll leave it there.

What the... Ernie, forget me arguing with you, you're arguing with yourself.

"trade unions were key to gaining basic workers rights"
"Trade unions are totally useless in an environment where workers have no rights"

So totally useless trade unions were key to gaining basic rights. Hmm.

History shows that collective action is the one thing workers have that can protect them, be that in a union,or not.

Personally i would also wonder why anyone would not be in a trade union, unless your in a bosses union-- CBI, and all the business associations that lobby on their behalf.

Been a trade unionist all my working life, an active one, would always abide by the collective decisions that are made, its called democracy, and would never cross a picket.

Personally i would also wonder why anyone would not be in a trade union, unless your in a bosses union-- CBI, and all the business associations that lobby on their behalf.

+1

All those threads that pop up on the chat forum from poor folk wanting advice with problems at work "my empoyer is screwing me with this, that or the other", "please explain this wierd HR thing to me", "my boss is a sociopath and is trying to manage me out of a job" and so on... This is the more important reason why I have always been in a union, thankfully not had to call on it in this way.

Although recently my union has been also been heavily involved in opposing pay/pension 'reforms' and the health and social care Bill/Act, and I voted for industrial action (about pension reforms)and went placarded-up on the demo. Strike day fell on my rostered day off though so never got to wrestle with the pay/letting your colleagues/patients down issue.

Personally i would also wonder why anyone would not be in a trade union

Some people work in jobs / roles that don't have unions.

Some people work in jobs / roles that don't have unions.

I can't think of any. Every employee has a trade union which can represent him or her.

I am in a union and only joined so I could get some good representation when trying to go part time due to being left holding the baby when my ex did a runner. I tried to fight the case on my own and drew a blank, joined a union got my rep in to put a word in for me and Bob's ya uncle it was sorted with no fuss. Not had anything else to do with them since but they served a purpose for me at the time. Not really interested in getting all militant on their ass as the company is in the shite as it is without strikes and all that guff.

The Tolpuddle Martyrs

Pmsl

You just gave Billy Brag a stiffy.

Some people work in jobs / roles that don't have unions.
I can't think of any. Every employee has a trade union which can represent him or her.

Can only think that they may work in a company that doesn't recognise unions?.

Can only think that they may work in a company that doesn't recognise unions?.

My present company doesn't but they still have to allow them to represent me, which they did very well in a recent round of redundancies we had, they successfully argued that I'd been unfairly selected for redundancy.

enfht - Member

You just gave Billy Brag a stiffy.

enfht makes an inane comment shocka !

I have an idea. Let's just buy all our stuff from a place that does not allow unions and pays their workers pence a day. That means we kill two birds with one stone. Get cheap stuff and reduce the power of the unions. May be I might send a mail to all the bike suppliers on here to see if the factories that make their stuff allow unions as it seems like a basic human right to me.

union membership where i work is on the decline, partially due to an incapable union official(who does absolutely nothing for his members)

I'm in a union and have been on strike for a day. It really pissedoff everyone on here!!!

Might be because they're rubbish, with the senior brass sucking up to both management and the government in the hope of a knighthood or senior job after leaving the union?

In the last three years my union has allowed a broadly unionised workforce to suffer a massive degradation of terms and conditions.

I'm in a union and have been on strike in the past , during the last strikes my union managed to negotiate away £25 a week from my wage!
The only real reason I keep up with my subs is for the legal protection.

People join unions for lots of reasons, those who are anti are happy to enjoy the benefits gained by unions though, never hear of people refusing a wage rise that has been gained, improved conditions etc......

You pay a lot of money (taxes,ni, ) to the govt every week, paying a relativly small amount to someone who will fight your corner seems a no-brainer to me