Unions

[bhaexpress]

The Unions have been used by the left to fight their idealogical battles. Unions are a good thing in defending workers rights but the left have destroyed them

That's the problem isn't it ? Had workers not been so badly abused originally there would have been no need for unions. However most people who are in a union aren't that bothered what it does as long as they're all right. Hence it's the more extreme people that tend to get involved in the organisation of a union often to pursue there own agenda. When it comes down to ego and arrogance Arthur Scargill was a classic case in point. Whist the miners have a valid case it was his personality that turned most people against his supporters.

The unions did a great job of destroying most of the workers in the dock and car industries to name but a few. British Telecom when it was the Post Office was a joke. Now of course people tend to have contempt for unions even though some organisations still treat their workforces with contempt.

 

[coventrygull]

I am a member of a union solely to protect me in the case of a disciplinary. The Ironic thing if I joined a certain political party. I would be expelled. Its bloody expensive as well £14 a month.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

Twinkle Toes, I like the cut of your jib!!!

Crosier comes over as a complete arse. Wasn't he involved with the FA in a previous life?

He was indeed. I seem to recall that Mr C pissed off Premier League big-bugs (who were effectively supporting the interests of the big clubs) by signing a sponsorship deal for England players without any consultation taking place. He was eventually ousted as the FA's chief executive after a "professional difference of opinion(s)" with then-Chairman Geoff Thompson. Mr T apparently didn't dig Mr Crozier's autocratic management style: & thus he headed off to take over as CE at Royal Mail.

It's good to see he's abandoned his FA Modus operandi to become the caring, sharing, warm human being that we all know & love.

 

[tedebear]

Does that stream of incoherent gibberish even MEAN anything?

No wonder you need a union if you can't understand a simple principle.

If a company is doing something illegal you take them to tribunal, by illegal I mean paying someone less than their contract states etc.

If the union is trying to get companies to pay employees more than their contracts state then they will have a very hard time. Why should a company allow a union to affect their profitability.

 

[El Presidente]

The unions have increased the cost of doing business in this country.

......and so have banks with the extortionate charges they make to companies, management with the bonuses and share options they award themselves, governments with the excessive red tape and incoherent tax system they have burdened companies with, shareholders with demands for ever increasing dividends regardless of performance, and the planet for running out of natural resources so inconsiderately, so why not blame these other parties too?

I belong to a Union, it costs me £17 a month, some reps are idiots, some are very shrewd, just like all other walks of life.

 

[tedebear]

I think you are talking out of your bottom mate! Are you saying that employees in this country should take wage cuts so that their labour costs equal those of someone working in a chinese sweatshop for example! Exactly what industries are you referring to that have unions and are now dominated by foreign workers. I would suggest it is more likely that foreign workers are taking up jobs where there are no unions..

Nope where did I every say people should take wage cuts? And by foreign I mean European as I stated, think of companies like Total if you remember what they did as their hand was forced by the unions.

For your information, I did issue Tribunal papers against the company and, according to the legal advice I had from several quarters, would easily have won however, I subsequently found a job in London and therefore withdrew the papers as I was not suffering a financial loss (I would have done had I stayed). It was because of that I joined a union to ensure legal protection. .

Why didn't you - the company hasn't been shown that it was incorrect? In effect you let them get away with it!

Speaking from experience, it is not easy to take on the company you work for which, going by your suggestions, would probably be the baulk of Tribunal work as it would relate to any change in contract conditions. What would you do if you company said we are reducing holidays to only 10 days a year, or your line manager didn't like your face or the fact you pulled the girl at the xmas party he had his eye on and therefore he just says your fired. Your boss says to you all we are reducing your salary so he can pay himself a bigger bonus.

I would take them to tribunal for wrongful dismissal and for changing T's & C's, yes it isn't easy but if you stand behind a Union who wouldn't bother touching that stuff with a barge pole, then in effect you are allowing the company to get away with it.

No it isn't easy to do it, but it is your right and you should.

 

[tedebear]

......and so have banks with the extortionate charges they make to companies, management with the bonuses and share options they award themselves, governments with the excessive red tape and incoherent tax system they have burdened companies with, shareholders with demands for ever increasing dividends regardless of performance, and the planet for running out of natural resources so inconsiderately, so why not blame these other parties too?
.

The thread title didn't invite comment on those topics?

 

[El Presidente]

The thread title didn't invite comment on those topics?

But your comment blaming Unions solely for increased costs did.

 

[tedebear]

But your comment blaming Unions solely for increased costs did.

I think you're reading what you want into my words - here is what I said:

The unions have increased the cost of doing business in this country

Where does it say solely?

 

[bhaexpress]

The unions have increased the cost of doing business in this country. And increased the ability for European labour to come here and take your jobs as they are willing to work for less.

When will people understand that the unions have had their time. They are slowly and surely screwing companies into a position where they have no choice but to offshore.

Unless the CWU walk away from the Royal Mail debate, the majority of your mail will be sorted by a Dutch company, and dropped through your door by a token Royal Mail postie. Royal Mail as you know it will cease to exist.

The Unions in some countries are much more powerful (and stupid) than this country. For example the Unions in the US are controlled by organised crime and have been for many years. They no longer serve their original purpose but that is down to corruption. The Australians have issues too. It's a fact that when the Japanese were threatening to invade the Australian mainland Aussie dockers when on a pay strike as they knew how vital they were. Of course the fact that it hampered their nation's war effort was neither here or there. I think similar things happened here as well.

However, that's the downside of a union. There some positives, they will try to protect their members which is the idea in the first place. However some unions are a waste of time and money, the only one I belonged to was useless.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

The unions have increased the cost of doing business in this country. And increased the ability for European labour to come here and take your jobs as they are willing to work for less.

When will people understand that the unions have had their time. They are slowly and surely screwing companies into a position where they have no choice but to offshore.

Unless the CWU walk away from the Royal Mail debate, the majority of your mail will be sorted by a Dutch company, and dropped through your door by a token Royal Mail postie. Royal Mail as you know it will cease to exist.

Do you actually know any real facts as to what has happened to Royal Mail since the 2000 Postal Bill was passed?

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

There is treating people fairly, and there is Unions holding employers to ransom.

The Royal Mail strikes this time around are over the agreement from the last series of strikes being implemented in areas like London, an agreement that has been successfully implemented elsewhere without a problem?

Why were the conditions acceptable 2 years ago and not now? It's not the management of Royal Mail making unfair demands on their staff, just asking them to work to the conditions the last strikes agreed to.

This strike has alot to do with a union that is outdated and out of touch with the realities of the market their members work in and a union that demands that the Royal Mail should be treated differently to any other business. Businesses that fail to adapt to a changing market will fail, going on strike will not change that.

They fail to recognise a drop in volume, and choose to blame management rather than changing technology and demands and the union would rather see the whole industry fail rather than work in the best interest of the companyand their members in the long term.

Why should a union behave like they run the company rather than the bosses and try to hold to ransom those who do run it?

I work for Royal Mail and new technology is being introduced and surprise surprise to all the anti-union brigade, the CWU is not opposing it all. There are new sorting machines at the mail centre that I work in sorting mail as I probably type out this reply.

 

[tedebear]

Do you actually know any real facts as to what has happened to Royal Mail since the 2000 Postal Bill was passed?

Yes I do.

 

[El Presidente]

I work for Royal Mail and new technology is being introduced and surprise surprise to all the anti-union brigade, the CWU is not opposing it all. There are new sorting machines at the mail centre that I work in sorting mail as I probably type out this reply.

As someone who is in the thick of it, was is your stake on the behaviour of both your union leaders and RM management?

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

That's the problem isn't it ? Had workers not been so badly abused originally there would have been no need for unions. However most people who are in a union aren't that bothered what it does as long as they're all right. Hence it's the more extreme people that tend to get involved in the organisation of a union often to pursue there own agenda. When it comes down to ego and arrogance Arthur Scargill was a classic case in point. Whist the miners have a valid case it was his personality that turned most people against his supporters.

The unions did a great job of destroying most of the workers in the dock and car industries to name but a few. British Telecom when it was the Post Office was a joke. Now of course people tend to have contempt for unions even though some organisations still treat their workforces with contempt.

You are being unfair to say it was the unions that did a great job of destroying jobs in the car industry, they were partly to blame but the you can also attribute a lot of the blame to weak, backward thinking management too.

 

[bhaexpress]

You are being unfair to say it was the unions that did a great job of destroying jobs in the car industry, they were partly to blame but the you can also attribute a lot of the blame to weak, backward thinking management too.

That's certainly true no doubt about that. Far too many companies would not reinvest and for example the Motor Cycle trade which we had dominated the world in for so many years simply ignored the fact that the Japanese started to produce much better equipment more cheaply than they could. Like the American car industry they felt that people would put loyalty and patriotism in from of quality and price. However, it's fair to say that the unions in the car industry had some truly ridiculous restrictions imposed by demarcation.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Yes I do.

Well by saying this

"Unless the CWU walk away from the Royal Mail debate, the majority of your mail will be sorted by a Dutch company, and dropped through your door by a token Royal Mail postie. Royal Mail as you know it will cease to exist."

You obviously don't, the CWU are trying to fight this very thing from happening.

Currently the vast majority mail is delivered by Royal Mail, even though it may say TNT, UK Mail and DHL on the envelope, we deliver it and we deliver it with a very small profit margin.
This unfair competition was created by this Government in response to European Legislation, this Government went too far with the legislation and by 2003 the postal market in the UK was fully liberalised, when most of the countries in Europe had not been fully liberalised incidentally. Royal Mail which the Government is the owner is forced by the regulator (Postcomm) which was set up by this Government to let our competitors use our mail network. Another part of European legislation that has been conveniently forgotten in this country is that if a mail company wishes to compete in a country that has been fully liberalised then the companies based in the country that is is competing in must be allowed to compete in the country that is based in. In other words as TNT compete here, Royal Mail should be allowed to compete in Holland. To this day, and correct me if I'm wrong I have no knowledge of Royal Mail being allowed or even competing with TNT in Holland! This has given the likes of TNT a foothold in this country, this artificial competition alongside the pension deficit has forced Royal Mail to stop two deliveries a day, close 2500 post offices and stop Sunday collections.
This was not done by the CWU, this was done by Royal Mail because of their failure to stand up to a Government who seem to be obsessed in destroying a company that is actually owns.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

As someone who is in the thick of it, was is your stake on the behaviour of both your union leaders and RM management?

Well my view will be biased because I am a trade union representative at work!

The industrial relations in Royal Mail have nosed dived since the 2000 Postal Bill was passed and Adam Crozier became Chief Executive.
I think the likes of Crozier are sly hatchet men and should be got rid of. He has never once challenged this Government and Postcomm about the unfair regulatory regime that Royal Mail has to live under. I would have thought as the top employee of Royal Mail he would fight for his company's rights and ensure the competition is fair and equal.
The union is not faultless either and have made mistakes in the past, I am not that biased or naive to think otherwise.
I have made more points in a post that I replied to in response to one of Tedebear's posts.

 

[drew]

Why didn't you - the company hasn't been shown that it was incorrect? In effect you let them get away with it!

I would take them to tribunal for wrongful dismissal and for changing T's & C's, yes it isn't easy but if you stand behind a Union who wouldn't bother touching that stuff with a barge pole, then in effect you are allowing the company to get away with it.

No it isn't easy to do it, but it is your right and you should.

You are making comments on a case you know very little about. The company did know they were wrong because at the last pay review they were forced to introduce a new bonus scheme, given to everyone else but I would only get it if withdrew the papers. That in itself is illegal. However, had I not left when I did then the following December would have been when I would have suffered the first financial loss. As it was, I left and within two years was earning twice what I had been. Had I stayed, come December I could then have claimed constructive dismissal but as it turned out, I was much better off leaving and so were my former colleagues because of the new bonus scheme.

I take it from your comments that you have taken an employer to a tribunal?

 

[tedebear]

Well by saying this

"Unless the CWU walk away from the Royal Mail debate, the majority of your mail will be sorted by a Dutch company, and dropped through your door by a token Royal Mail postie. Royal Mail as you know it will cease to exist."

You obviously don't, the CWU are trying to fight this very thing from happening.

Currently the vast majority mail is delivered by Royal Mail, even though it may say TNT, UK Mail and DHL on the envelope, we deliver it and we deliver it with a very small profit margin.
This unfair competition was created by this Government in response to European Legislation, this Government went too far with the legislation and by 2003 the postal market in the UK was fully liberalised, when most of the countries in Europe had not been fully liberalised incidentally. Royal Mail which the Government is the owner is forced by the regulator (Postcomm) which was set up by this Government to let our competitors use our mail network. Another part of European legislation that has been conveniently forgotten in this country is that if a mail company wishes to compete in a country that has been fully liberalised then the companies based in the country that is is competing in must be allowed to compete in the country that is based in. In other words as TNT compete here, Royal Mail should be allowed to compete in Holland. To this day, and correct me if I'm wrong I have no knowledge of Royal Mail being allowed or even competing with TNT in Holland! This has given the likes of TNT a foothold in this country, this artificial competition alongside the pension deficit has forced Royal Mail to stop two deliveries a day, close 2500 post offices and stop Sunday collections.
This was not done by the CWU, this was done by Royal Mail because of their failure to stand up to a Government who seem to be obsessed in destroying a company that is actually owns.

I am aware of that. In order to compete anywhere the Royal Mail needs to modernize. Downstream access is foreign based companies taking advantage of the fact they can collect, sort and distribute to Royal Mail's own hubs far cheaper and far more efficiently, and then the posite drops it through the door. If the Royal Mail were able to modernize they should be able to offer service at a this reduced cost as well, thereby being competitive and remaining the fantastic insitution they are. Sadly it will mean job losses.

The politics and union posturing are getting in the way of saving this grand old dame of postage. If they argue too much longer there won't be anything to sort anyhow.