"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:50:36 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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.

There are numerous government organisations including the HSE who have
responsibility for that.

Do the HSE have man in each workplace?

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:57:36 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message


There are numerous government organisations including the HSE who have
responsibility for that.

Do the HSE have man in each workplace?


Irrelevant. It is the HSE who have the responsibility in terms of
enforcement.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:57:36 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message

There are numerous government
organisations including the HSE who have
responsibility for that.

Do the HSE have man in each workplace?

Irrelevant.

Matt, NONSENSE!!! The unions have a man on site and can monitor what the
incompetent fools are trying to pull off.

In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

Just annoyed that I took the time to address Andy's misunderstanding and he
dismissed it like the right-wing bigot he pretends not to be.

I don't think he is a bigot. As yet I have seen no personal abuse from him,
merely some very well stated facts. On the other hand, you seem to find it
difficult to have a civilized conversation when someone suggests an
alternative to your blinkered "us and them" attitude.

Please don't get so excited, we are interested in your point of view, but
without the aggression please. You are starting to sound like Fatty Twojags
in the way he responds to criticism.

--
AJL

"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.

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
. ..
In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

Indeed your description of your objectivity leads one to a single
conclusion -
you're a liar.

A little uncalled for John. I realise that we are all on different sides
of
the fence, but a discussion needn't turn into a slanging match. I still
have
respect for the views of yourself and others, even though they are so
misguided. :-)

I wouldn't call John Cartmell's views misguided at all.

In article , Andy Luckman (AJL
Electronics) wrote:
In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

Indeed your description of your objectivity leads one to a single
conclusion - you're a liar.

A little uncalled for John. I realise that we are all on different sides of
the fence, but a discussion needn't turn into a slanging match. I still
have respect for the views of yourself and others, even though they are so
misguided. :-)

I've no objection to his saying that he objects to unions. Dismissing a simple
and true description of what unions do as rubbish - and at the same time
claiming to be fair and objective - requires a marker to be set down. He can
choose to be a right-wing apologist or he can stop dismissing fair comment.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

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. 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.

They had already fallen throught the 'usual' management
checks and in no case did individually members of staff think they were
capable/ dared risk involvement as an individual.

This, of course, is nonsense and is simply rhetoric promoted by the
union movement in attempt to justify their existence.

Except that all the instances that I cited were from personal
experience/knowledge.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:57:36 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message

There are numerous government organisations including the HSE who have
responsibility for that.

Do the HSE have man in each workplace?

Irrelevant. It is the HSE who have the responsibility in terms of
enforcement.

So who gets the manager to put the matter right? In my experience it's the
union H&S rep who has been trained by the union and who both knows the
possible safety problems of his workplace and has contacts who can advise him
about specifics and give expert support without bringing the company into
conflict with the law.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ews.net, Doctor
Drivel wrote:

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
. ..
In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

Indeed your description of your objectivity leads one to a single
conclusion - you're a liar.

A little uncalled for John. I realise that we are all on different sides
of the fence, but a discussion needn't turn into a slanging match. I
still have respect for the views of yourself and others, even though
they are so misguided. :-)

I wouldn't call John Cartmell's views misguided at all.

Just annoyed that I took the time to address Andy's misunderstanding and he
dismissed it like the right-wing bigot he pretends not to be.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:57:36 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message

There are numerous government organisations including the HSE who have
responsibility for that.

Do the HSE have man in each workplace?

Irrelevant. It is the HSE who have the responsibility in terms of
enforcement.

So who gets the manager to put the matter right? In my experience it's the
union H&S rep who has been trained by the union and who both knows the
possible safety problems of his workplace and has contacts who can advise
him
about specifics and give expert support without bringing the company into
conflict with the law.

...and saves the company a fortune in everyday costs and litigation when they
get it wrong doing it (or not doing it) themselves.

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor
Drivel wrote:

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
. ..
In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

Indeed your description of your objectivity leads one to a single
conclusion - you're a liar.

A little uncalled for John. I realise that we are all on different
sides
of the fence, but a discussion needn't turn into a slanging match. I
still have respect for the views of yourself and others, even though
they are so misguided. :-)

I wouldn't call John Cartmell's views misguided at all.

Just annoyed that I took the time to
address Andy's misunderstanding and he
dismissed it like the right-wing bigot
he pretends not to be.

He is very confused. For e.g., he defends the current planning laws, which
are clearly Stalinist and have clearly not served the people in 60 years. I
advocate tearing them down to something sensible allowing feedom, sort out
the land ownership problem as 0.66% of the population own about 70% of the
land, which is a big problem in itself, and allow market forces dictate
housing demand. In sort - freedom. If I want to build a fine house in a
corner of a pretty field then I should be allowed to. Then he calls me a
commie.

He is the worst type of narrow minded, Tory Southern England, Little Middle
Englander. If you don't vote Tory you must be a commie in his little mind.
One word could sum him up..."sycophant"

John Cartmell wrote:

Except that all the instances that I cited were from personal
experience/knowledge.


My experiences appear to be at odds with yours. I have almost always
found the union representative to be an intellectually challenged
individual who liked to seem important. ( I have seen the same in many
managers also) My experiences with the GMB in particular were very bad,
in that the low calibre, full time, officials had no interest what so
ever in a family members problems. Their only concern was the collection
of money from the workforce. I've never seen a union representative
point out health and safety points in the industries I've been
associated with. They just don't know enough about the processes. The
last comments I read on the future of trade unions from an international
appraiser, with no axe to grind, was that they have no future in the
modern economic system. The US car unions are now reaping the results of
pricing their members out of a job with the pending failures of Delco
and GM. The same is also true of US airline workers. The only benefits I
can see in union membership are short term, in some service industries,
with weak management, where foreign competition is low and wages can be
temporarily raised, although the Irish ferry workers are still facing
replacement by cheaper non union labour. At the end of the day, what it
all comes down to, are the services which you provide of interest to the
customer/employer at the price point you specify. If not, then the union
will not benefit you. By the way, I also get the impression that you
feel employers are responsible for the state of health of their
employees, not so. Employers are only expected to provide safe working
environments. If the employee is unfit, the the NI system comes into
play in providing support for the person concerned, tough, but that's
the real world.

Regards
Capitol

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:38:41 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Luckman (AJL
Electronics) wrote:
In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

Just annoyed that I took the time to address Andy's misunderstanding and
he dismissed it like the right-wing bigot he pretends not to be.

I don't think he is a bigot. As yet I have seen no personal abuse from him,
merely some very well stated facts.

Such as his reply to this?
"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."

Just to remind you his reply was:

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

Hardly abusive, was it?



His reply shows total ignorance of reality and a failure to want to accept the
truth of what I wrote.

What you have written represents something that you may have read or
possibly experienced. At no point did I question whether or not that
happened, or to imply that you were not telling the truth as you saw
it.


In my previous point, and in my reply, I was making the point that
none of this *requires* involvement of unions or any other group
constituted organisation.

In other words, I do not see in what you wrote a case that unions must
be involved or bad things happen. That patently isn't true because
many businesses get along perfectly well without them.

The reality of the situation is that you don't like it when somebody
suggests that there can be an alternative to your notion that a union
is a requirement to maintain balance in the workplace and to prevent
bad things happening to employees. Rather than thinking laterally,
you choose to suggest that anybody disagreeing with you is a liar.
This is hardly a morally high stance is it?






On the other hand, you seem to find it difficult to have a civilized
conversation when someone suggests an alternative to your blinkered "us and
them" attitude.

You seem to be suffering from the same problem. Read again what I have written
and you will see that I'm talking about people working together and sorting
out one another's errors in a non-conflict way. Andy doesn't think that's
needed and would rather the law stepped in to put right management
deficiencies - or at least that's the result of his view even if his hasn't
thought it through properly.

There is one thing in an employee or employees approaching their
managers as individuals to discuss concerns. It is quite another
when an externally constituted organisation claiming to act on behalf
of the employees does so. That is the unnecessary part, and in the
final analysis creates an adversarial situation. I was not
particularly advocating that the law should be invoked at all, but
rather that their should be an independent party dealing with matters
of health and safety.



--

..andy

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:25:47 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



He is very confused. For e.g., he defends the current planning laws, which
are clearly Stalinist and have clearly not served the people in 60 years. I
advocate tearing them down to something sensible allowing feedom, sort out
the land ownership problem as 0.66% of the population own about 70% of the
land, which is a big problem in itself, and allow market forces dictate
housing demand. In sort - freedom. If I want to build a fine house in a
corner of a pretty field then I should be allowed to. Then he calls me a
commie.


The confusion appears to be on your part.

On the one hand, you are advocating the removal or substantial
liberalisation of planning legislation, on the argument of creating a
free market. In fact, I don't have particularly strong views on
planning legislation other than its somewhat arbitrary nature.

However, on the other hand you are suggesting that there should be
what amounts to a forced redistribution of legally held land assets by
imposition of a draconian taxation.

Either this is a muddle, or you are being inconsistent. In a free
market, one can own, buy and sell assets and is not forced to do so
for some ideology.


--

..andy

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:43:51 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Luckman (AJL
Electronics) wrote:
In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

Indeed your description of your objectivity leads one to a single
conclusion - you're a liar.

A little uncalled for John. I realise that we are all on different sides of
the fence, but a discussion needn't turn into a slanging match. I still
have respect for the views of yourself and others, even though they are so
misguided. :-)

I've no objection to his saying that he objects to unions. Dismissing a simple
and true description of what unions do as rubbish - and at the same time
claiming to be fair and objective - requires a marker to be set down. He can
choose to be a right-wing apologist or he can stop dismissing fair comment.

If you actually read what I wrote, you would realise that I didn't
dismiss anything. I didn't say that what you described didn't or
doesn't happen or that unions may play a part in it.

I simply said that union involvement isn't necessary in order to
achieve a safe and effective workplace, and it isn't.

Where you get the notion that this is a right wing position eludes me.
Surely unions should be apolitical if they are to represent their
members fairly and not to create an adversarial situation, shouldn't
they?




--

..andy

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:52:05 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:57:36 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message

There are numerous government organisations including the HSE who have
responsibility for that.

Do the HSE have man in each workplace?

Irrelevant. It is the HSE who have the responsibility in terms of
enforcement.

So who gets the manager to put the matter right?

The employees, by discussing it with the management. If that is not
successful, then representations can be made to the HSE.

In my experience it's the
union H&S rep who has been trained by the union and who both knows the
possible safety problems of his workplace and has contacts who can advise him
about specifics and give expert support without bringing the company into
conflict with the law.

It is completely unnecessary to have a union to achieve this. In
non-union environments, there are individuals trained at the expense
of the employer in H&S issues, first aid and so on. The obvious
thing to do would be to make that a legal requirement based on type of
industry and number of employees. It doesn't need a union to be
involved.


--

..andy

In article , Capitol
wrote:
I've never seen a union representative point out health and safety points
in the industries I've been associated with. They just don't know enough
about the processes.

Most unions run H&S courses and the TUC has produced them for unions that
don't run their own. The one I attended was far superior to any company course
including classroom learning, practical tests, research projects, reference
material, and continuing support. Some workplaces do suffer from poor union
representatives, partially because of the poor public perception of unions
that Andy is perpetuating. The answer is to give unions and union reps the
status their valuable work deserves and reap the reward of good reps in even
more places. One reason for my anger at Any's repeated lies.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

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.

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.



They had already fallen throught the 'usual' management
checks and in no case did individually members of staff think they were
capable/ dared risk involvement as an individual.

This, of course, is nonsense and is simply rhetoric promoted by the
union movement in attempt to justify their existence.

Except that all the instances that I cited were from personal
experience/knowledge.

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.


--

..andy

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:27:47 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

But unions have been replaced in many fields by trade associations who are
equally a closed shop - but exist to make a profit for their owners.
Capitalism gone mad again.

You know, I'd never thought of it that way, and you are absolutely
right. CORGI are just as much a problem to me as a householder as an
old-style closed-shop trade union would be to an employer. And at the
same time, it doesn't give the individual fitters the protection a union
would.

Everybody loses!
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
In my previous point, and in my reply, I was making the point that
none of this *requires* involvement of unions or any other group
constituted organisation.

Except that they did. Every single one of the instances *required* the
intervention of a third party capable of talking to management with the
backing of a union organisation.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:30:05 +0000, Capitol wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

Except that all the instances that I cited were from personal
experience/knowledge.


My experiences appear to be at odds with yours. I have almost always
found the union representative to be an intellectually challenged
individual who liked to seem important.

And mine in turn are completely out of step with your experiences.

I worked in the ESI for many years. I was a staff representative and later
a lay officer in the Electrical Power Engineers Association (subsequently
Engineer's and Managers Association). Collective bargaining in those days
was a national function, but I participated fully in discussions about
re-organisation, changes to working practices within my employing Area
Board, particularly in the period leading up to privatisation.

It is also proper to comment that changes and improvements in productivity
and working practices aren't always management led. They were sometimes
introduced from the shop floor through the medium of joint consultation.

I came into close contact with shop stewards from other unions, and without
exception found them to be conscientious and hard-working individuals, who
were committed to the proper governance of the industry as well as the
welfare of the people they represented. That the ESI had an excellent
record in terms of industrial relations may have had a not inconsiderable
bearing on the quality of the people who undertook this quite onerous task.
(My employer sent me - as a Union rep - on a course about employment law
run by The Industrial Society)

snip

I've never seen a union representative
point out health and safety points in the industries I've been
associated with. They just don't know enough about the processes.

I beg to differ. Every staff Safety rep I encountered took their duties
very seriously. Safety issues were always of the utmost importance. Safety
Reps, whether they were from technical, industrial or clerical staff
unions, were always fully involved and participated actively in enquiries
whenever they arose. They also contributed fully when changes to working
practices were under consideration.

snip

The only benefits I
can see in union membership are short term, in some service industries,
with weak management, where foreign competition is low and wages can be
temporarily raised, although the Irish ferry workers are still facing
replacement by cheaper non union labour.

In an industry where the risk of danger was and still is prevalent, trade
union membership is essential as a protect-your-arse insurance policy when
things go wrong. Fortunately they rarely did, they rarely do, but that was
the *bottom line* of why I and pretty much all of my colleagues were in a
(moderate and non-politically aligned) trades union. Having said that, most
active trades union members were so because of the excellent joint advisory
and consultation mechanisms that existed.

snip

At the end of the day, what it
all comes down to, are the services which you provide of interest to the
customer/employer at the price point you specify. If not, then the union
will not benefit you.

That has much more to do with the successful, effective and efficient
running of a company, than with trades union membership.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

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.

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'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.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:08:56 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
In my previous point, and in my reply, I was making the point that
none of this *requires* involvement of unions or any other group
constituted organisation.

Except that they did. Every single one of the instances *required* the
intervention of a third party capable of talking to management with the
backing of a union organisation.

That's complete nonsense.

You can't possibly say that the same outcome couldn't have been
achieved without the union.

If this were the case, then there would be a national outcry as the
result of the vast number of accidents that would be happening in
non-union work environments. It isn't, ergo it is not a
*requirement* to have unions in order to achieve a safe working
environment.



--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It is completely unnecessary to have a union to achieve this. In
non-union environments, there are individuals trained at the expense
of the employer in H&S issues, first aid and so on. The obvious
thing to do would be to make that a legal requirement based on type of
industry and number of employees. It doesn't need a union to be
involved.

I too look forward to a time when unions are no longer required. Let me know
when.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:04:50 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Capitol
wrote:
I've never seen a union representative point out health and safety points
in the industries I've been associated with. They just don't know enough
about the processes.

Most unions run H&S courses and the TUC has produced them for unions that
don't run their own. The one I attended was far superior to any company course
including classroom learning, practical tests, research projects, reference
material, and continuing support. Some workplaces do suffer from poor union
representatives, partially because of the poor public perception of unions
that Andy is perpetuating. The answer is to give unions and union reps the
status their valuable work deserves and reap the reward of good reps in even
more places. One reason for my anger at Any's repeated lies.


Your anger is purely and simply because one of your perceived
justifications for unions has been challenged and you are not able to
deal with what you take as being criticism.

All of the things that you describe such as H&S courses are of course
worth having. However, it does not require involvement of a union to
achieve them.


--

..andy

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
The US car unions are now reaping the results of pricing their members
out of a job with the pending failures of Delco and GM. The same is
also true of US airline workers.

Don't be silly. If car workers 'priced themselves out of a job' there
would be no cars made anywhere in the western world - given wages in the
far east being so much lower. GM are failing because their cars are in the
main poor, and not what the public want to buy - especially at the middle
part of the market where the biggest profits are made. Or perhaps you
think one of the most profitable car makers, BMW, pays wages similar to
those in the far east?

It's a typical bosses right wing attitude that workers price themselves
out of the market and should therefore be willing to accept any wages no
matter how low. Would then that they themselves would accept such
conditions - but reality shows that even in a failing industry they still
take everything they can.

--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:23:05 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I simply said that union involvement isn't necessary in order to
achieve a safe and effective workplace, and it isn't.

You said it wasn't necessary to do what I described. It was.

No it wasn't. What you are describing was a situation in which a set
of things were tried. This does not mean that they were the *only*
options, simply that others, which clearly work OK in non-union
environments were not tried or not even considered.


In any case your
new statement requires management that get their stuff right all the time.
They don't.

This would assume that union involvement would equally get things
right all the time, and I doubt that as well.


Where you get the notion that this is a right wing position eludes me.

I get it from people who say what you said in an attempt to undermine the
essential work that unions do.

Unions don't have any *essential* work. For everything that one
does, I can think of at least one alternative. If you consider that
to be a political position, then it makes the assumption that a union
is a politically motivated organisation.



Surely unions should be apolitical if they are to represent their
members fairly and not to create an adversarial situation, shouldn't
they?

I described unions working in circumstances that were not adverarial - but did
provide a long-stop for management. You dismissed that making me think that
you were making the adversarial assumptions.

Legislation is the long stop for management.


--

..andy

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:32:11 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It is completely unnecessary to have a union to achieve this. In
non-union environments, there are individuals trained at the expense
of the employer in H&S issues, first aid and so on. The obvious
thing to do would be to make that a legal requirement based on type of
industry and number of employees. It doesn't need a union to be
involved.

I too look forward to a time when unions are no longer required. Let me know
when.


Hopefully sooner than you think.


--

..andy

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:08:56 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
In my previous point, and in my reply, I was making the point that
none of this *requires* involvement of unions or any other group
constituted organisation.

Except that they did. Every single one of the instances *required* the
intervention of a third party capable of talking to management with the
backing of a union organisation.

I'd second that. Trying to negotiate, for instance with a very macho style
of management hell-bent on change without consulting with their work force,
without the backing of a trades union is something I wouldn't have cared to
do.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article , Capitol
wrote:

The US car unions are now reaping the results of pricing their
members out of a job with the pending failures of Delco and GM. The
same is also true of US airline workers.


Don't be silly. If car workers 'priced themselves out of a job' there
would be no cars made anywhere in the western world

Ask yourself how many TVs are made in the western world. I give the car
industry about 10-15 years before it is entirely a low wage economy product.

- given wages in
the far east being so much lower. GM are failing because their cars
are in the main poor, and not what the public want to buy -
especially at the middle part of the market where the biggest profits
are made.

But still selling more than Mercedes, BMW, Ford in the US
market. The point is not the poor product, but that the selling price
achieved for the product does not warrant the wages and benefits paid.


& Delco? and the airline industry? and the Irish ferries?

Or perhaps you
think one of the most profitable car makers, BMW, pays wages similar
to those in the far east?

With BMW reliability plummeting AIUI, it's just a matter of time before
their problems become as bad. However, their wages and benefits are much
lower than GM and Ford to start with.

It's a typical bosses right wing attitude that workers price
themselves out of the market and should therefore be willing to
accept any wages no matter how low.

True, but would you sooner have a low wage job or no job is the
question at the end of the day, or are you willing personally to pay to
retrain to make your skills base more marketable?

Would then that they themselves
would accept such conditions - but reality shows that even in a
failing industry they still take everything they can.

That's called self preservation. Without it you starve!

Regards
Capitol

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

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:23:05 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
I simply said that union involvement isn't necessary in order to achieve
a safe and effective workplace, and it isn't.

You said it wasn't necessary to do what I described. It was.

No it wasn't. What you are describing was a situation in which a set of
things were tried. This does not mean that they were the *only* options,
simply that others, which clearly work OK in non-union environments were
not tried or not even considered.

They tend not to work in non-union environments. Your asumption that they do
is without foundation and against all the evidence. Try looking at the
records of industrial accidents and industrial disease.

In any case your new statement requires management that get their stuff
right all the time. They don't.

This would assume that union involvement would equally get things right all
the time, and I doubt that as well.

Rubbish. Union reps are bloody awful at times. they are sometimes almost as
bad as bloody awful management. But they do offer a quite different
opportunity to get things right. What makes it harder to get better union
reps is the low esteme they have because of lies promulgated by people who
don't understand what they are criticising; hence my hatred of what you are
doing and my unwillingness to accept that you are doing it 'objectively'.

Unions don't have any *essential* work. For everything that one does, I
can think of at least one alternative. If you consider that to be a
political position, then it makes the assumption that a union is a
politically motivated organisation.

I haven't mentioned politics and I haven't relied on any of the political
good that unions do. You read the list (maybe) that I gave. You haven't - and
cannot - think of any viable alternatives to any of them, and all of them
were strictly non-political.

Surely unions should be apolitical if they are to represent their
members fairly and not to create an adversarial situation, shouldn't
they?

I described unions working in circumstances that were not adverarial - but
did provide a long-stop for management. You dismissed that making me think
that you were making the adversarial assumptions.

Legislation is the long stop for management.

Legislation is the framework.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
All of the things that you describe such as H&S courses are of course
worth having. However, it does not require involvement of a union to
achieve them.

Though you don't bother explaining how the day to day H&S and personnel
matters can be organised. I gave you real specific instances that you could
use on which to pin your answers.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
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.

You're saying that someone whose job is designing, making or selling widgets
should be as competent in employment law and conditions as someone whose job
is employment law and conditions and that when the two disagree about matters
of employment law and conditions relating to the employment of the former then
they are debating at equal strength. You're either a fool or a rogue if that's
what you are saying - and that *is* what you are saying.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:54:38 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

This does not mean that they were the *only* options,
simply that others, which clearly work OK in non-union environments were
not tried or not even considered.

They tend not to work in non-union environments. Your asumption that they do
is without foundation and against all the evidence. Try looking at the
records of industrial accidents and industrial disease.

I simply don't buy that for one moment. If there were a substantial
issue, then it would have become apparent long before now.

If you believe that there is a statistically significant difference,
then please provide the evidence, with sources and basis.



In any case your new statement requires management that get their stuff
right all the time. They don't.

This would assume that union involvement would equally get things right all
the time, and I doubt that as well.

Rubbish. Union reps are bloody awful at times. they are sometimes almost as
bad as bloody awful management. But they do offer a quite different
opportunity to get things right. What makes it harder to get better union
reps is the low esteme they have because of lies promulgated by people who
don't understand what they are criticising; hence my hatred of what you are
doing and my unwillingness to accept that you are doing it 'objectively'.

Of course it's objective. Do you seriously believe that the reason
that it is difficult to get good union reps is because they are not
held in high esteem by those who are fortunate enough not to be in
business environments where they operate?

I am not questioning the integrity or good intentions of a union rep
who would like to genuinely represent his colleagues without a
political agenda and the "us and them" dogma that is rightfully
belongs in history.

I am, however, raising the question as to whether the role of unions
needs to exist at all, and nothing has been said that gives me cause
to see any significant value in comparison with individuals feeling
sufficiently empowered to make their own arrangements.

In the final analysis, if a union attempts to negotiate something that
is untenable for a business, the business will shop elsewhere for
resources. It may not be immediately, but if the result is simply
staving off the evil day rather than encouraging people to sorth
themselves out, then it will have done a gross disservice to those who
it claims it represents.

I think that the reality of the situation is that there is declining
interest in union involvement because people are seeing through it and
are not as stupid as the lieutenants would like to believe.

This may be a bitter pill to swallow when it represents one's
idealism, but it is better to do so and deal with the reality rather
than to go on kidding oneself and attempting to kid others.




Unions don't have any *essential* work. For everything that one does, I
can think of at least one alternative. If you consider that to be a
political position, then it makes the assumption that a union is a
politically motivated organisation.

I haven't mentioned politics and I haven't relied on any of the political
good that unions do. You read the list (maybe) that I gave. You haven't - and
cannot - think of any viable alternatives to any of them, and all of them
were strictly non-political.

Rubbish. There are loads of alternatives including H&S consultants
in a broad range of disciplines and the HSE itself.
This is before one thinks about the ability of individuals to stand up
for themselves. I know that that is a difficult concept when one has
a collectivist mindset.




Surely unions should be apolitical if they are to represent their
members fairly and not to create an adversarial situation, shouldn't
they?

I described unions working in circumstances that were not adverarial - but
did provide a long-stop for management. You dismissed that making me think
that you were making the adversarial assumptions.

Legislation is the long stop for management.

Legislation is the framework.


Exactly. It provides the basis from which individual employees and
employers can and do create a positive, safe and profitable work
environment.



--

..andy

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:57:55 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
All of the things that you describe such as H&S courses are of course
worth having. However, it does not require involvement of a union to
achieve them.

Though you don't bother explaining how the day to day H&S and personnel
matters can be organised. I gave you real specific instances that you could
use on which to pin your answers.


There is no need to drill down to this level of detail.

Do we see large trails of death, injury and destruction in non-union
companies? No.

Are the A&E departments full of people from non-union enterprises with
missing body parts? No.

The reality is that businesses do perfectly well without the
involvement of unions....




--

..andy

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:34:54 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

snip

There is no need to drill down to this level of detail.

Do we see large trails of death, injury and destruction in non-union
companies? No.

Are the A&E departments full of people from non-union enterprises with
missing body parts? No.

The reality is that businesses do perfectly well without the
involvement of unions....

But do the employees do as well?

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:02:45 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:


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.

You're saying that someone whose job is designing, making or selling widgets
should be as competent in employment law and conditions as someone whose job
is employment law and conditions and that when the two disagree about matters
of employment law and conditions relating to the employment of the former then
they are debating at equal strength. You're either a fool or a rogue if that's
what you are saying - and that *is* what you are saying.

I didn't say or even imply that at all.

It's interesting that when people are arguing a weak point based on
what amounts to a religious conviction, they see everything in black
and white as you are doing.

Very obviously there are shades of grey.


It suits the union ideology to believe that he average member is not
able to look after himself and needs to have his hand held by the
union rep and hierarchy.

You are suggesting that somebody whose job is designing making or
selling widgets would need to be as competent as a legal professional
in matters of employment law.

A small amount of thought would make one realise that this is a
nonsense - of course people are able to think and act for themselves.
They are also perfectly capable of knowing when to seek professional
legal help when required.

Do people go to a union rep. when they are buying and selling a house
or having a barney with the neighbours? Of course not. They are
perfectly able to seek out the appropriate professional assistance
from a conveyancer or solicitor.

There is nothing in employment law which requires the mediation of the
union priest in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome for the
employee and for that matter the employer.


--

..andy

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:08:04 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:08:56 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
In my previous point, and in my reply, I was making the point that
none of this *requires* involvement of unions or any other group
constituted organisation.

Except that they did. Every single one of the instances *required* the
intervention of a third party capable of talking to management with the
backing of a union organisation.

That's complete nonsense.

You can't possibly say that the same outcome couldn't have been
achieved without the union.

If this were the case, then there would be a national outcry as the
result of the vast number of accidents that would be happening in
non-union work environments. It isn't, ergo it is not a
*requirement* to have unions in order to achieve a safe working
environment.

It's much easier to hide accidents in non-union shops.


Oh, puhleez.....


--

..andy