"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
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.

None of which require involvement of unions or any other group
constituted
organisation.

I'd be interested to here just how you
think such problems might have been put
right otherwise.

Some clued up companies use the unions as way of ensuring they are within
the law. It saves them money having people to do that. They will allow the
shop steward to be full time dealing with matters, paying him far less than
the people they would have to get in. Those who oppose the unions at every
stage are generally poor companies and rip-off artists.