[DaveO]

Re: Unions, are they evil? : Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:01 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you were an employer and you had three factories, one had no union, one had a union you could work with and one had a union that was difficult - and you needed to close one!!

That is an unrealistic scenario as the most likely situation is all would be non-unionized or all would be under the same union but the one they would close is the one without the union. That is obvious.

It would cost more to close the one with the difficult union. They could just ride roughshod over the non-unionized employees. And they would.

You only have to look how hard unions in the UK have to work to protect UK jobs where the company has factories across Europe. Despite the propaganda we have some of the weaker employee protection legislation in the EU. When it comes to closing factories such multi-national companies will often try to close the UK site because the unions on the continent have secured better employment rights for their workers.

Unions have a part to play in H&S and disciplinaries/labour relations that apart I am not sure what else they really bring to the party. We have seen with the public sector they are pretty impotent when it comes to wage negotiations.

That is a rather sweeping generalization. How far do you think public sector workers would have been exploited if they had no union representation at all?

Employers, public and private try it on all the time. The idea workers in general would be safe if we had even more "flexible" employment laws because employers are generally all very nice and behave correctly is a complete joke.

It would be helpful - a bit like politicians - if the top brass had more relevant work experiance e.g. Brendon Barber.

Given directors of companies are often appointed to be directors of companies in industries they have no experience of why do you say this? They are employed as directors because presumably they know how run companies not because they are experts on how to make widgets or whatever. Barber is presumably employed using the same logic. He knows who to run union and secure what is best for its members.

Re: Unions, are they evil? : Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:11 am  

Unions could be so good if only they were run properly.

If they did what they said they do - that is, look after their members by liaising with and if necessary, challenging management in a constructive way, to come up with solutions that are fair and workable to everyone, then no-one would have any beef with unions.

Management, however, have their parts to play too. They need to view unions with less suspicion. But I believe that management will only do that if unions clean their act up first. Otherwise it's stalemate.

Re: Unions, are they evil? : Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:36 am  

ROBINSON wrote:

Unions could be so good if only they were run properly.

If they did what they said they do - that is, look after their members by liaising with and if necessary, challenging management in a constructive way, to come up with solutions that are fair and workable to everyone, then no-one would have any beef with unions.

As has been mentioned, it was almost entirely down to the union involved (Unite) that Vauxhall changed its plans to close down the factory at Ellesmere Port, with the loss of over 2,000 (IIRC) jobs. The company wanted to do that because it is easier to just shut down an entire site in the UK than it is anywhere else in Europe.

How much better do you want a union to be?

And why are such stories not reported properly?

ROBINSON wrote:

... But I believe that management will only do that if unions clean their act up first ...

"Clean up their act"? Because the unions are just so, so much worse than, for instance, the banks that caused the financial crisis or the companies that make big profits but pay mickey poor wages that need topping up by the taxpayer, yes? Or pay massive bonuses or parachute payments for failures, yes? Do you mean "clean up their act" like that? Do you mean companies like News International, which seems to have been up to its neck and corrupt and criminal practices?

Re: Unions, are they evil? : Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:07 am  

Mintball wrote:

As has been mentioned, it was almost entirely down to the union involved (Unite) that Vauxhall changed its plans to close down the factory at Ellesmere Port, with the loss of over 2,000 (IIRC) jobs. The company wanted to do that because it is easier to just shut down an entire site in the UK than it is anywhere else in Europe.

How much better do you want a union to be?

And why are such stories not reported properly?

"Clean up their act"? Because the unions are just so, so much worse than, for instance, the banks that caused the financial crisis or the companies that make big profits but pay mickey poor wages that need topping up by the taxpayer, yes? Or pay massive bonuses or parachute payments for failures, yes? Do you mean "clean up their act" like that? Do you mean companies like News International, which seems to have been up to its neck and corrupt and criminal practices?

Hang on - no one is saying that management or companies are whiter than white, are they? If you can point to where I suggested that, then please feel free.

One instance of a union being involved in General Motors' decision not to close Vauxhall's plant does not for one minute mean EVERY union acts properly in every instance. For every story like this, there appear to be five or ten Andy Gilchrist type figures, for instance.

Re: Unions, are they evil? : Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:17 pm  

DaveO wrote:

That is an unrealistic scenario as the most likely situation is all would be non-unionized or all would be under the same union but the one they would close is the one without the union. That is obvious.

It would cost more to close the one with the difficult union. They could just ride roughshod over the non-unionized employees. And they would.

I would suggest this is not the case - if you had factories in different industries the union arrangements would be very different even in the same country. In my own industry the sites with the most stubborn unions are usually those that get closed first. If the union simply refuses to budge what else can you do? There are limits to how long you can support a loss making plant if the unions are not prepared to work with management. The obvious case of a militant union is the miners - not sure their strength did them much good.

You only have to look how hard unions in the UK have to work to protect UK jobs where the company has factories across Europe. Despite the propaganda we have some of the weaker employee protection legislation in the EU. When it comes to closing factories such multi-national companies will often try to close the UK site because the unions on the continent have secured better employment rights for their workers.

Agreed in some cases in others their actions actually cost members their jobs - union driven disputes at Wyndham-Heron resulted in the closures of two factories.

That is a rather sweeping generalization. How far do you think public sector workers would have been exploited if they had no union representation at all?

Not sure how much further the lower paid could be exploited given we have a minimum wage? Those at the top of the public sector are far from exploited

Employers, public and private try it on all the time. The idea workers in general would be safe if we had even more "flexible" employment laws because employers are generally all very nice and behave correctly is a complete joke.

Employers generally want to have the correct calibre of person for a market rate which is driven by supply and demand of labour for that particular position. They are generally in a competitive environment where they need to differentiate themselves from the competition - that doesn't happen by magic. If a company offers well below the market rate they will get a well below market standard employee.

Given directors of companies are often appointed to be directors of companies in industries they have no experience of why do you say this? They are employed as directors because presumably they know how run companies not because they are experts on how to make widgets or whatever. Barber is presumably employed using the same logic. He knows who to run union and secure what is best for its members.

The difference is Barber and his ilk are spouting about how employers should pay their workers - they have no experience of running a commercial business and the financial and commercial pressures involved. Not sure many MD are suggesting how Barber can run the TUC?

Re: Unions, are they evil? : Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:43 pm  

ROBINSON wrote:

Hang on - no one is saying that management or companies are whiter than white, are they? If you can point to where I suggested that, then please feel free...

No. But your comments imply that unions are never effective etc.

Let's look at what you yourself said:

ROBINSON wrote:

Unions could be so good if only they were run properly.

Not 'some unions' or even 'X % of unions', but "unions". In other words, all of them.

ROBINSON wrote:

... does not for one minute mean EVERY union acts properly in every instance...

Nobody has, that I can see. But you have suggested that unions never act well or beneficially.

You also said:

ROBINSON wrote:

... But I believe that management will only do that if unions clean their act up first...

So "unions" (general comment again) need to "clean up their act" before management will talk to them.

It's not me, but you that are, in the language that you yourself have used, suggested that unions per se are never in the right.

ROBINSON wrote:

... For every story like this, there appear to be five or ten Andy Gilchrist type figures, for instance.

And see my – and Coddy's – point about media coverage/spin.

Gilchrist hasn't been the general secretary of the FBU for seven years. Do you know who the current general secretary is – and what his political position is?

This is not meant as a silly question. The point is, if you don't know, is that because the media that you have seen in that time hasn't found anything negative to report about him or the union? Matt Wrack defeated Gilchrist in an election for the post in 2005. He stood again at the end of his term in in 2010, facing opposition, and won again. So presumably the people who pay his wages are happy with the service he provides them – or at least did not consider his opponent a better candidate.

You know, Robinson, that I have criticised the likes of Bob Crow on this forum before. But there is a perfectly good argument that Crow remains in the job because his employers are happy with his work.

But the point remains that, while you (and this is certainly not unique to you) can easily name a trade union leader that you dislike, where do you hear the positive stories?

Re: Unions, are they evil? : Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:50 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The difference is Barber and his ilk are spouting about how employers should pay their workers - they have no experience of running a commercial business and the financial and commercial pressures involved. Not sure many MD are suggesting how Barber can run the TUC?

Well indeedy.

Companies automatically pay their employees a proper, decent rate for the job and nobody ever needs to exert pressure on an employer for a pay rise, because employers are ultimately the best-natured, most generous people on planet Earth.

They would never, for instance, not pay a decent wage to an employee even when making big bucks and paying their top managers big bucks – oh no sirree.

And there is absolutely no connection between what wages employees are paid and the health of the nation's economy as a whole, thus meaning that each and every business operate entirely in a vacuum and it is of no interest or business of anyone outside that company how much they can get away with not paying.

And of course, no business ever, ever tells the government of the day how to run the entire country for their benefit alone, do they?

BTW, how's your own wage claim going, Sal: y'know – in "the real world"?

Re: Unions, are they evil? : Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:19 pm  

My own experience of unions showed both sides of the argument. I worked in the Border and Immigration Agency for 12 months before starting my grad career with a major corporate 5 years ago.

During the 12 months in the BIA there were a number of strikes, some of which were very petty regarding things like forcing certain frontline staff to wear a uniform. Some of the union reps relished the chance to take issue at everything and anything, and got a real buzz out of striking and threatening to strike. Many of these reps actually caused resentment amongst other staff who just wanted to get on with an honest days work, as they would spend all day preoccupying themselves with often trivial union business at the expense of doing any real work.

Conversely, it is certainly fair to say that the unions did provide a voice to stand up to some of the government's pension reforms which might otherwise have been enacted unchallenged.

My own view at the time was that the BIA staff I worked with had very generous salary, holiday and pension entitlements, particularly in relation to the fact that we didn't work particularly hard, did not work under any arduous conditions and had very little job stress. As a result, I thought the union's were not particularly relevant - nobody could be exploited for minimum wage in dangerous working conditions, and we were all free to move and get another job somewhere if we didnt like what we were being paid.

In my view unions have a place, particularly amongst large, low-skilled, low paid employers, but there are too many examples of unnecessary union involvement causing more problems than they solve.

Re: Unions, are they evil? : Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:48 pm  

ROBINSON wrote: Unions could be so good if only they were run properly. If they did what they said they do - that is, look after their members by liaising with and if necessary, challenging management in a constructive way, to come up with solutions that are fair and workable to everyone, then no-one would have any beef with unions. Management, however, have their parts to play too. They need to view unions with less suspicion. But I believe that management will only do that if unions clean their act up first. Otherwise it's stalemate. You mean like Scargill?Odious little man that still wants to keep leaning left whilst someone else pays his bills.

ROBINSON wrote: Unions could be so good if only they were run properly. If they did what they said they do - that is, look after their members by liaising with and if necessary, challenging management in a constructive way, to come up with solutions that are fair and workable to everyone, then no-one would have any beef with unions. Management, however, have their parts to play too. They need to view unions with less suspicion. But I believe that management will only do that if unions clean their act up first. Otherwise it's stalemate. You mean like Scargill?Odious little man that still wants to keep leaning left whilst someone else pays his bills.

[DaveO]

Re: Unions, are they evil? : Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:18 pm  

It would cost more to close the one with the difficult union. They could just ride roughshod over the non-unionized employees. And they would.

I would suggest this is not the case - if you had factories in different industries the union arrangements would be very different even in the same country. In my own industry the sites with the most stubborn unions are usually those that get closed first. If the union simply refuses to budge what else can you do? There are limits to how long you can support a loss making plant if the unions are not prepared to work with management. The obvious case of a militant union is the miners - not sure their strength did them much good.

Hang on, you are not getting away with that. You are changing the goal posts here. You never said anything about the factories being in different industries and nothing about loss making plants. You simply said they wanted to close one of three factories that had with different levels of unionization. If you want to bring loss making factories into it they would close the least profitable and would be mad to do otherwise. It would be very convenient for them though if that happened to be the non-unionized plant.

Not sure how much further the lower paid could be exploited given we have a minimum wage? Those at the top of the public sector are far from exploited

I am not sure of the point of this statement but most of the people leading the exploitation of the majority of public sector workers are the minority in the pubic sector at the top. Wages aren't the only way employees are exploited. In Cheshire they brought in something called "single status" which meant people from differing boroughs that ended up in the new Chester and Cheshire West council were all working under the same conditions. As you can probably guess the new conditions were always based on the lowest common denominator. I don't think there was one instance where someones terms and conditions were improved. In other local authorities such moves to "single status" have been done much more fairly. Is that because of better union representation in those authorities? I don't know but I doubt it happened because the authorities were feeling altruistic.

Employers, public and private try it on all the time. The idea workers in general would be safe if we had even more "flexible" employment laws because employers are generally all very nice and behave correctly is a complete joke.

Employers generally want to have the correct calibre of person for a market rate which is driven by supply and demand of labour for that particular position. They are generally in a competitive environment where they need to differentiate themselves from the competition - that doesn't happen by magic. If a company offers well below the market rate they will get a well below market standard employee.

What you say there has nothing to do with the point I made. If you think the only reason an employer would sack someone if they had free reign to hire and fire at will is due to the "supply and demand of labour" you are incredibly naive. My point was about unscrupulous employers not ones who wish to respond to changes in the market.

Given directors of companies are often appointed to be directors of companies in industries they have no experience of why do you say this? They are employed as directors because presumably they know how run companies not because they are experts on how to make widgets or whatever. Barber is presumably employed using the same logic. He knows who to run union and secure what is best for its members.

The difference is Barber and his ilk are spouting about how employers should pay their workers - they have no experience of running a commercial business and the financial and commercial pressures involved. Not sure many MD are suggesting how Barber can run the TUC?

Barber and any other Union lead is quite entitled to do this whether they have industry experience or not. Remember the tanker driver dispute? I have no idea if Len McCluskey of Unite has ever driven a tanker or worked in the Petrochemical industry but I can't see how the fact he probably hasn't should have excluded him and his union from representing the tanker drivers. Unite did a pretty good job of protecting the tanker drivers from increased casualisation of the job. A big reason they managed to do this was in part down to that supply and demand thing you are so fond of too.

In any case the idea union leaders are ignorant of the economics and state of the industries the workers they represent work in isn't a very credible opinion anyway in my opinion. They probably know more about it than some of the management!