On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:29:26 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:48:44 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
If an individual employee has a workplace health/safety issue, then he
can make appropriate representations - it doesn't require some
intermediary to do it for him.

It may surprise you that most people are not capable of doing that.

That is simply a put down statement promoted by union activists in an
attempt to justify their existence and position of power.

Don't be silly. No matter how good people do their own jobs, many are simply
not capable of promoting their own needs to best advantage - especially under
difficult (eg disciplinary) circumstances. The only people who normally
dismiss this are those that rely on the advantage to enable their bullying to
succeed.

That's rubbish.



It is generally to be so acknowledged in every forum where people are
required to put defend themselves eg in court, that people need a
representative to speak on their behalf - or a neutral adjudicator, or
both.

People are smarter than you imagine. Of course, if there is a specific
area of expertise, then it is reasonable to call upon the services of an
expert in that area. However, that is the role of a neutral adjudicator
rather than of a partisan representative.

Your comments are crap. It's nothing to do with smart and everything to do
with being too close, emotion, knowledge, &c. And your last comment assumes
that all personnel disputes go to external adjudication rather than being
dealt with internally and at an early stage. You cannot be serious.

I am completely serious, and no my comments are not "crap" as you put
it. Consider how employment disagreements are worked out in
non-union environments. The answer is perfectly well. If it is
ultimately necessary to involve legal process then legally qualified
expertise should be sought.



I'm sure that the events happened. What I am questioning is the notion
that you have derived from them that people are not capable of acting or
thinking for themselves without the help of a union. That is patent
nonsense.

Your justifications are a bully's charter.

Sigh...

It may disappoint you to hear this, but generally people are able to
think for and look after themselves and don't need to be nannied by a
union or anyone else.




--

..andy