In article , John Cartmell
writes
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The thread was essentially about the value of union involvement in the
employer/employee scene. My contention is that the value is very
limited, especially from the employee perspective because the idea of
allowing a third party to negotiate on one's behalf leads at best to a
sense of false security.

You seem to have developed an understanding of Unions' involvement in industry
from right-wing tabloids. You're wrong. You're up the creek. You haven't got
the slightest idea what you're on about. &many, many &c.
I really don't have time to take you from yoyr current understanding to a real
appreciation of the truth - best done by simply reversing all your
preconceptions. Most union work is done quietly, in the background, and is
about the minor stuff that means nothing to the outside world and everything
to the individuals involved. It's the sort of stuff that adds up to everyone
getting on with their job far, far better - not to mention, safer, happier,
and healthier. Every hour of every day union reps will be ensuring that people
who may be good at their job, but not good at defending or promoting
themselves, are properly represented. They will be telling busy managers that
there is already an agreement to cover what otherwise seems to be heading for
a dispute. And they will be highlighting potential H&S problems before someone
is killed. Left to their own devices managers will (in my personal experience)
insist on an employee with asthma working in a closed section with
half-a-dozen chain smokers, precipitate strikes because they misrepresent
company policy, tell staff they have failed to get their (much needed)
promotion whilst they are dealing with the public, insist on storing chemicals
in an unsafe condition that could get the premises closed and the company
heavily fined (at best). All examples put right (or changed for the future) by
union involvement at little cost. Little things.

What a load of ********
--
David