On 29/12/2011 14:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
John wrote:
Total ********. The very idea a few heavies could force the majority of
hairy arsed blokes to do something they didn't want to is laughable.

It wasn't the heavies in the crowd that forced people to vote the way
they did, it was the anticipated peer pressure after the meeting. You
had to work with them afterwards, and that could get very unpleasant if
you didn't conform.

Right. So you're suggesting the majority wanted some form of result you
disagreed with? That's rather different from a few heavies forcing all
before them into their point of view.

I was talking in general terms, not mentioning a particular case. I've
not been in the situation of disagreeing with the rest of the union
members in a meeting, though I know of some who have. Those who
disagreed openly often found it hard to get colleagues to cover time off
for illness or family problems, for instance.

For much the same reasons, although I'm not in a
union, I take a day's holiday or move a rest day (with the management
knowing why) if there's a strike.

I would ask what you do if that industrial action results in improved pay
or conditions, etc. Do you turn them down?

No, but after my last experience with an all-union firm, I avoid such
companies. The last one I worked for had the worst pay and conditions in
the area for that industry.

From another point of view, I am supporting the union by taking the
same action and lose the same amount of pay that they do, so why should
I turn down the benefits, especially when the union don't offer help to
non-members? Which, again in the case of the last union firm I worked
for, was no help to me whatsoever.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.