On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:14:33 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I simply don't subscribe to the notion that a union is a requirement
to make a difference to employment terms and conditions

Are you confident that Hannah Kirkham's life wouldn't have been better if she
had a union rep. and union organisation to support her when bullied by fellow
workers and manager?

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/me..._kfc_girl.html


This is a tragic situation indeed, and clearly nobody can condone the
alleged bullying. However, I think that it is a very long stretch to
suggest that involvement of a union would necessarily have helped, and
it is certainly not the only route as you are implying.

What would have happened if the union rep had been involved in the
bullying? Not impossible. This was not a case of the employer doing
the bullying in the article that you quote or any others that seem to
be readily accessible.

The GP said

"The stressful events could have led to her depression".

One has to ask what was going on between the June and December. Other
articles mention inpatient treatment for serious depression etc. That
is beyond the remit of a union official.


You refer to sweatshops and illicit labour. Sweat shops are proliferating
today because unions are less strong than they were.

If sweat shops are proliferating it is because there is a market for
them and people willing to work in them.


The law is too weak in
many areas - along with others around here I'd like to see KFC senior managers
in prison for manslaughter - and there are places and times where only unions
can offer the support that employees need.

That's completely ridiculous. The employer has since set up a help
line for employees to use, which seems pretty sensible.

An independent counsellor would be even better.


--

..andy