On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:46:51 +0000, The Wanderer
wrote:

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?

When I use the term "business" it is in the context of all who are
involved be they investor, manager or employee.




--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
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.

It's a long time since I looked at the statistics and I don't know what are
now kept. At one time it was possible to see that numbers that could be hidden
(eg Accident book entries) were low in non-Union workplaces whilst numbers
that couldn't be hidden (eg major accidents inc deaths) were high in
proportion. That indicates that low-level accidents weren't finding their way
into accident books. As these are good guidance to inform management about
potential dangers and put working practice right before major accidents occur
- and to improve the health of workers - then that in itself indicates the
effectiveness of a union presence.
Check for yourself.

[Snip]

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?

It's one reason. Another is that they generally have to do lots of unpaid
work. A third is that they are frequently overlooked for promotion. Making
them not appreciated is a good tactic for bastrads to really make the job
difficult.

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.

I doubt whether anything anyone could say would change your mind. You deny the
obvious needs without being willing to debate them.

[Snip]

--
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 Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:27:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It's much easier to hide accidents in non-union shops.

Oh, puhleez.....

Are you then suggesting that every accident that is supposed to be recorded in
an accident book is so recorded?

I'm simply suggesting that you are clutching at straws....

It doesn't require a policeman in the form of a union official to
achieve that, and can just as easily be done by any employee.


--

..andy

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:24:58 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:



It's a long time since I looked at the statistics and I don't know what are
now kept. At one time it was possible to see that numbers that could be hidden
(eg Accident book entries) were low in non-Union workplaces whilst numbers
that couldn't be hidden (eg major accidents inc deaths) were high in
proportion. That indicates that low-level accidents weren't finding their way
into accident books. As these are good guidance to inform management about
potential dangers and put working practice right before major accidents occur
- and to improve the health of workers - then that in itself indicates the
effectiveness of a union presence.
Check for yourself.


Mmmm..... Why do I find that unconvincing?


[Snip]

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?

It's one reason. Another is that they generally have to do lots of unpaid
work. A third is that they are frequently overlooked for promotion. Making
them not appreciated is a good tactic for bastrads to really make the job
difficult.

I can't imagine why.......





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.

I doubt whether anything anyone could say would change your mind. You deny the
obvious needs without being willing to debate them.

I've debated them extensively. I'm simply looking at a larger picture
than you seem to be willing to accept from your personal experience.

The reality is that businesses, including all of the stakeholders
manage perfectly well without unions, so there is no argument to say
that one *must* have them in the way that you would like to have us
all believe.

There aren't *obvious* needs that can't be dealt with in multiple
other ways.


--

..andy

In article ,
The Wanderer wrote:
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)

My experience too. But most union bashers have never been in a union, or
had any close dealings with them. Their views are based on meja coverage,
and the meja is not known for giving a balanced view. Indeed, some of the
most appalling work practices were positively encouraged by management in
the newspaper industry - and TV - when it suited them in the 'good times'.
Then when competition ended their cosy near monopolies it was the unions
who were to blame...

--
*Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.*

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

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:27:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
It's much easier to hide accidents in non-union shops.

Oh, puhleez.....

Are you then suggesting that every accident that is supposed to be
recorded in an accident book is so recorded?

I'm simply suggesting that you are clutching at straws....

It doesn't require a policeman in the form of a union official to achieve
that, and can just as easily be done by any employee.

Your experience is outside that of every normal human of my acquaintance.
I've been chided for suggesting that you are lying - but I'm not willing to
accept an alien genesis for you.

--
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 21:47:05 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

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.

That doesn't look much like a shade of grey to me.

There *are* people who are not particularly articulate, poorly educated,
very shy, insecure, or who go to pieces under stress. They clearly
benefit from being morally supported and advised of the rules.

Obviously, not everybody does. And a Union isn't the only way that help
and support can be given.

But it's one way. And having a small network of well trained and
involved representatives may well be the most cost effective way of
doing it.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:39:51 +0000, Nick Atty wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:47:05 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

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.

That doesn't look much like a shade of grey to me.

There *are* people who are not particularly articulate, poorly educated,
very shy, insecure, or who go to pieces under stress. They clearly
benefit from being morally supported and advised of the rules.

Obviously, not everybody does.

And they're the ones who tend to become staff reps, union officers....

:-))

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

Nick Atty wrote:

There *are* people who are not particularly articulate, poorly educated,
very shy, insecure, or who go to pieces under stress. They clearly
benefit from being morally supported and advised of the rules.

Agreed...

Obviously, not everybody does. And a Union isn't the only way that help
and support can be given.

Isn't that exactly what Andy was saying all along?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
David wrote:
In article , John Cartmell
writes
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:27:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
It's much easier to hide accidents in non-union shops.

Oh, puhleez.....

Are you then suggesting that every accident that is supposed to be
recorded in an accident book is so recorded?

I'm simply suggesting that you are clutching at straws....

It doesn't require a policeman in the form of a union official to achieve
that, and can just as easily be done by any employee.

Your experience is outside that of every normal human of my acquaintance.
I've been chided for suggesting that you are lying - but I'm not willing to
accept an alien genesis for you.

You are suggesting that it can't be right because that is your
experience, you're wrong.

He was denying the truth of my experience.

--
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 ,
David wrote:
In article , John Cartmell
writes
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.

Not when I'm around and I have never needed a union to get working
practices changed or to get accidents investigated and Yes I did advance
myself within the companies afterwards.

Unless you're around in every non0-union shop that doesn't invlidate my
comment. But well done about getting accident books used properly - it's rare
outside certain limited industries.

--
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 ,
John Rumm wrote:
Nick Atty wrote:

There *are* people who are not particularly articulate, poorly educated,
very shy, insecure, or who go to pieces under stress. They clearly
benefit from being morally supported and advised of the rules.

Agreed...

Obviously, not everybody does. And a Union isn't the only way that help
and support can be given.

Isn't that exactly what Andy was saying all along?

Yes - but no one has yet said how such support could be achieved. Not to
mention all the other good things that unions do for workers and companies.

--
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:

There *are* people who are not particularly articulate, poorly educated,
very shy, insecure, or who go to pieces under stress. They clearly
benefit from being morally supported and advised of the rules.


Agreed...


Obviously, not everybody does. And a Union isn't the only way that help
and support can be given.


Isn't that exactly what Andy was saying all along?


Yes - but no one has yet said how such support could be achieved. Not to
mention all the other good things that unions do for workers and companies.

If you ignore the collective bargaining aspect of unions that is
typically what people initially "see", then you are right that there are
a good number of other activities they help and support (the better ones
at least)

I am not presenting these as all encompassing answers, but more as
suggestions for alternatives to the traditional union role for some of
the situations you describe:

H&S - a suitably trained task force of staff ought to be able to handle
most issues on a day to day basis in the same way as seems to work well
for first aiders, fire marshals etc. There is recourse to the HSE should
negotiation be non viable and enforcement be required. The same can also
work for working practice changes.

For the people you mention above who are unable to adequately represent
themselves there are alternative options ranging from assistance
provided by a colleague more able in these matters, to outside legal
support provided via trade associations or insurance schemes, or even
purchased by the individual in some cases. You could also look at the
slightly bigger picture and think about options that would facilitate
the growth and personal development of these folks so as to overcome
some of these limitations. It is not going to happen in all workplaces,
but sufficiently on the ball management can help identify these people
and provide training / support, since there ought to be tangible
benefits to the business from rises in their productivity and benefits
to the individual from improved job satisfaction / self esteem /
confidence into the bargain.

For general help and advice regarding general employment matters there
are also plenty of other sources of information these days: including
anything from the CAB to the internet.

Remember also the whole nature of employment is evolving, and so must
the mechanisms that exist to facilitate good intra business relations.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:20:58 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

Nick Atty wrote:

There *are* people who are not particularly articulate, poorly educated,
very shy, insecure, or who go to pieces under stress. They clearly
benefit from being morally supported and advised of the rules.

Agreed...

Obviously, not everybody does. And a Union isn't the only way that help
and support can be given.

Isn't that exactly what Andy was saying all along?

Well I thought he was going further and saying that a union is the wrong
way. I'd go the other way, and say that - particularly for large and
complicated enterprises - it may be the best, from both the employer and
employees points of view.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:59:51 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:27:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
It's much easier to hide accidents in non-union shops.

Oh, puhleez.....

Are you then suggesting that every accident that is supposed to be
recorded in an accident book is so recorded?

I'm simply suggesting that you are clutching at straws....

It doesn't require a policeman in the form of a union official to achieve
that, and can just as easily be done by any employee.

Your experience is outside that of every normal human of my acquaintance.

Then you must have a very limited experience.


--

..andy

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:47:05 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:
In article , John Cartmell
writes
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:27:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
It's much easier to hide accidents in non-union shops.

Oh, puhleez.....

Are you then suggesting that every accident that is supposed to be
recorded in an accident book is so recorded?

I'm simply suggesting that you are clutching at straws....

It doesn't require a policeman in the form of a union official to achieve
that, and can just as easily be done by any employee.

Your experience is outside that of every normal human of my acquaintance.
I've been chided for suggesting that you are lying - but I'm not willing to
accept an alien genesis for you.

You are suggesting that it can't be right because that is your
experience, you're wrong.

He was denying the truth of my experience.


No I wasn't. Read carefully what I said rather than what your
emotions led you to believe that I said.

I did not deny that the scenarios that you described happened to you.
Hopefully the outcomes were satisfactory for all concerned.

What I did say was that there is no *need* for there to be union
involvement in order for there to be a safe and harmonious working
environment. This is demonstrable from the large number of non-union
businesses.

What I further said, was that I did not believe that union involvement
was the *only* way in which the scenarios you described from your own
experience could have been resolved. That is a natural progression
from the second point, and if one thinks about it logically, would
have needed *all* other options to have been tried. I am not, in
this suggesting that you were not telling the truth, as you have, in
your emotive approach suggested was the case for me; but rather that I
don't believe that all the possibilities could have been explored.




--

..andy

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:20:58 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

Nick Atty wrote:

There *are* people who are not particularly articulate, poorly educated,
very shy, insecure, or who go to pieces under stress. They clearly
benefit from being morally supported and advised of the rules.

Agreed...

Obviously, not everybody does. And a Union isn't the only way that help
and support can be given.

Isn't that exactly what Andy was saying all along?

Exactly.


--

..andy

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:00:19 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Nick Atty wrote:

There *are* people who are not particularly articulate, poorly educated,
very shy, insecure, or who go to pieces under stress. They clearly
benefit from being morally supported and advised of the rules.

Agreed...

Obviously, not everybody does. And a Union isn't the only way that help
and support can be given.

Isn't that exactly what Andy was saying all along?

Yes - but no one has yet said how such support could be achieved.

Actually I did, several times. Among them were work peers,
specialist consultants in areas such as H&S, professional advisors
such as solicitors, counsellors, the list is endless.


Not to
mention all the other good things that unions do for workers and companies.

The track record is poor. Closed shops, restrictive practices,
working to rule, intimidation, secondary picketing, incitement to
violence, political agenda, ......



--

..andy

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:13:18 +0000, Nick Atty
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:20:58 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

Nick Atty wrote:

There *are* people who are not particularly articulate, poorly educated,
very shy, insecure, or who go to pieces under stress. They clearly
benefit from being morally supported and advised of the rules.

Agreed...

Obviously, not everybody does. And a Union isn't the only way that help
and support can be given.

Isn't that exactly what Andy was saying all along?

Well I thought he was going further and saying that a union is the wrong
way.

I put it this way.

Clearly there are alternative ways of achieving what a union purports
to do without the political and adversarial baggage that often
accompanies union involvement.

Secondly, I think that individual personal development as a result of
not relying on collective organisations is ultimately of greater
benefit to individuals.




--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Clearly there are alternative ways of achieving what a union purports
to do without the political and adversarial baggage that often
accompanies union involvement.

Clearly there are no alternatives for what unions do that aren't more
expensive, more confrontational, and of less support for employees.

--
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:
I did not deny that the scenarios that you described happened to you.
Hopefully the outcomes were satisfactory for all concerned.

Some required more union input than others - some were put right by the
presence of the union rep.

What I did say was that there is no *need* for there to be union
involvement in order for there to be a safe and harmonious working
environment. This is demonstrable from the large number of non-union
businesses.

Unless you can show that non-union shops work to the comfort and well-being of
employees as well as union shops (and you cannot) then you have demotrated
nothing.

--
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 Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:46:50 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I did not deny that the scenarios that you described happened to you.
Hopefully the outcomes were satisfactory for all concerned.

Some required more union input than others - some were put right by the
presence of the union rep.

What I did say was that there is no *need* for there to be union
involvement in order for there to be a safe and harmonious working
environment. This is demonstrable from the large number of non-union
businesses.

Unless you can show that non-union shops work to the comfort and well-being of
employees as well as union shops (and you cannot) then you have demotrated
nothing.

Can you demonstrate that union shops work as well as or better than
non-union ones?

If there were a significant difference in either direction, it would
be obvious. People would migrate to union based businesses if there
really was a significant advantage and there does not appear to be
significant evidence of that.

The reality is that there is a long term decline in the union movement
from its most outrageous days of the 60s and 70s, to where it is
today. I imagine that in another generation, it will have become a
curiosity of industrial history like the steam locomotive -
interesting to study but belonging to a bygone era.




--

..andy

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:49:15 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Your experience is outside that of every normal human of my acquaintance.

Then you must have a very limited experience.

Perhaps we can do a straw poll of the group. If you're right then everyone in
the group can be confident that the accident book at their places of work show
a true record of the accidents (minor as well as major) that occur in that
place. Anyone wish to confirm that's the case?

I will because I maintain it.

This is a really scientific study, BTW....


--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Not to mention all the other good things that unions do for workers
and companies.

The track record is poor. Closed shops, restrictive practices,
working to rule, intimidation, secondary picketing, incitement to
violence, political agenda, ......

You appear to be living in the past, Andy. Most of these things are now
against the law. Would you also use Dickensian working conditions as being
representative of today's employers?
I somehow doubt any union would have allowed boys to be sent up chimneys...

--
*What hair colour do they put on the driver's license of a bald man? *

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

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Clearly there are alternative ways of achieving what a union purports
to do without the political and adversarial baggage that often
accompanies union involvement.

Do you also criticise the 'bosses union' - the CBI - for its political and
adversarial involvement? Companies donating money to the Tory party
without shareholder's agreement?

--
*They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.

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

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:37:36 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The track record is poor. Closed shops, restrictive practices,
working to rule, intimidation, secondary picketing, incitement to
violence, political agenda, ......

As I said - you seem to get your 'information' from the Daily Mail. ;-(

Nope. I can confirm that I don't read the Daily Mail.


However, I do have living memory and can read the mass of published
material from a wide variety of sources on this whole sorry saga with
stars such as Scargill, Warren, Robinson,.... to name but a few.








--

..andy

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:42:48 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Clearly there are alternative ways of achieving what a union purports
to do without the political and adversarial baggage that often
accompanies union involvement.

Clearly there are no alternatives for what unions do that aren't more
expensive, more confrontational, and of less support for employees.


That's simply rubbish.


--

..andy

In message , John Cartmell
writes
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Your experience is outside that of every normal human of my acquaintance.

Then you must have a very limited experience.

Perhaps we can do a straw poll of the group. If you're right then everyone in
the group can be confident that the accident book at their places of work show
a true record of the accidents (minor as well as major) that occur in that
place. Anyone wish to confirm that's the case?

Umm. Not really. You are arguing black and whites whereas my experience
was shades of grey. Undoubtedly union wage negotiations created uniform
rates of pay which may have encouraged work place harmony. It may also
have interfered with managements desire to best operate the business.
Employee actual ability was swamped in an ethos of grade equality.

I have said before, that union activity is least welcome in a failing
industry. Job security becomes an issue which outweighs business
viability and can accelerate a business failure.

Somewhere is middle ground where a business can be free to make
decisions affecting employees without damaging confrontation and where
worker representation can ensure employment rights are fairly upheld.

Thank heavens to be self employed today:-)

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:19:06 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Not to mention all the other good things that unions do for workers
and companies.

The track record is poor. Closed shops, restrictive practices,
working to rule, intimidation, secondary picketing, incitement to
violence, political agenda, ......

You appear to be living in the past, Andy. Most of these things are now
against the law. Would you also use Dickensian working conditions as being
representative of today's employers?
I somehow doubt any union would have allowed boys to be sent up chimneys...

I used the expression "track record" as an indicator that they did
not, in the past behave in an apolitical manner or one without a
number of other agendas.

Fortunately, most of this activity is now illegal, as you say.
However, were it not, I wonder how long it would be before there was a
return to the bad old days.

I just don't think that the relationship between an employer and
employees should be the subject of the baggage of external,
politically motivated organisations.


However, it is clear that there is a general decline anyway.
Whether one looks at TUC or Labour Force Survey figures, while the
decline in union membership has levelled off at the 7-8M level; the
long term trends are clear enough.

If you look at the LFS figures, there is a higher percentage across
the working population of membership in older age groups (35% for 35+,
25% for 25-34 and 11% for under 25s).
There is a geographical factor as well. The highest memberships are
in the regions having the greater proportions of middle to heavy
traditional industry (North East 38%, Wales 38%, North West 34%)
while London has 26% and the South East 21%.


Taken together, these pieces of information suggest to me a picture
of:

- Union scope being legally limited
- New industries replacing those in which unions historically were
active
- Feeling by the younger generation that unions are no longer
relevant.




--

..andy

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:23:05 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Clearly there are alternative ways of achieving what a union purports
to do without the political and adversarial baggage that often
accompanies union involvement.

Do you also criticise the 'bosses union' - the CBI - for its political and
adversarial involvement? Companies donating money to the Tory party
without shareholder's agreement?


Companies donate money to all parties with and without shareholder
agreement, so that is a quid-pro-quo.


--

..andy

In article , John Cartmell
writes
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The track record is poor. Closed shops, restrictive practices,
working to rule, intimidation, secondary picketing, incitement to
violence, political agenda, ......

As I said - you seem to get your 'information' from the Daily Mail. ;-(

Actually John, Andy is right which is why I think union membership has
fallen so much, having witnessed union activity in the car industry I
can confirm all the above, if you are denying any of this goes on then
you need to look into it more.
--
David

In article ,
David wrote:
In article , John Cartmell
writes
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The track record is poor. Closed shops, restrictive practices,
working to rule, intimidation, secondary picketing, incitement to
violence, political agenda, ......

As I said - you seem to get your 'information' from the Daily Mail. ;-(

Actually John, Andy is right which is why I think union membership has
fallen so much, having witnessed union activity in the car industry I
can confirm all the above, if you are denying any of this goes on then
you need to look into it more.

I wouldn't dream of denying the problems - I fought against them. I do object
to Andy denying the greater problems of abuse of the law and good working
conditions by employers and the good done by unions. I do also know of some
very good employers - who incidentally also encourage trades unions.

--
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 Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:50:40 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:
In article , John Cartmell
writes
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The track record is poor. Closed shops, restrictive practices,
working to rule, intimidation, secondary picketing, incitement to
violence, political agenda, ......

As I said - you seem to get your 'information' from the Daily Mail. ;-(

Actually John, Andy is right which is why I think union membership has
fallen so much, having witnessed union activity in the car industry I
can confirm all the above, if you are denying any of this goes on then
you need to look into it more.

I wouldn't dream of denying the problems - I fought against them. I do object
to Andy denying the greater problems of abuse of the law and good working
conditions by employers and the good done by unions.

I haven't said that there isn't abuse of the law. That will always
happen, for example in sweat shop environments where illicit labour is
used and H&S law is flouted. It's unlikely that unions would be
encouraged in these places by either employer or employees, so no
change there.

I simply don't subscribe to the notion that a union is a requirement
to make a difference to employment terms and conditions or that union
officials should have a role of self appointed H&S police.



--

..andy

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:43:52 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I used the expression "track record" as an indicator that they did
not, in the past behave in an apolitical manner or one without a
number of other agendas.

Fortunately, most of this activity is now illegal, as you say.
However, were it not, I wonder how long it would be before there was a
return to the bad old days.

I wonder how long it would take employers to return to the bad old days
without laws to control them *and* unions to monitor them? Actually I don't
wonder, I know. About 10 seconds.

Nobody has suggested any changes in the law, except perhaps to require
employers to have a means of independent H&S policy definition and
implementation.

Where in H&S legislation is it a requirement that unions act as
policemen on behalf of the HSE?


--

..andy

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

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

--
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:
Where in H&S legislation is it a requirement that unions act as
policemen on behalf of the HSE?

I know I won't change your mind. You have a fixation that needs the attention
of a doctor - not just more information. I've no intention of following every
moved goalpost but - to avoid the charge of not answering your question -
no-one suggested that it is (or should) be done like that or be included in
legislation.

--
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 , John Cartmell
writes
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I used the expression "track record" as an indicator that they did
not, in the past behave in an apolitical manner or one without a
number of other agendas.

Fortunately, most of this activity is now illegal, as you say.
However, were it not, I wonder how long it would be before there was a
return to the bad old days.

I wonder how long it would take employers to return to the bad old days
without laws to control them *and* unions to monitor them? Actually I don't
wonder, I know. About 10 seconds.

There are lots of companies that run very well without any interference
from unions so your 10 second claim is a nonsense also given a
slackening of laws governing union activity it would take about 10
seconds for them to return to the bad old days, the reds are still under
the beds just waiting for the revolution.

You have more faith in union activity than I have but that doesn't mean
you're right, its easy to make claims about all the good work that's
done "on the quiet" but then there is also lots of good work done with
regard to H & S and working practices without unions. I have experience
of both and because of the nature of the union activity wouldn't belong
to another one.
--
David

In article ,
David wrote:
The track record is poor. Closed shops, restrictive practices,
working to rule, intimidation, secondary picketing, incitement to
violence, political agenda, ......

As I said - you seem to get your 'information' from the Daily Mail. ;-(

Actually John, Andy is right which is why I think union membership has
fallen so much, having witnessed union activity in the car industry I
can confirm all the above, if you are denying any of this goes on then
you need to look into it more.

If you were a union member, why didn't you do something about it? Such
behaviour wouldn't have been tolerated in any union I've been a member of,
and rightly so. Somehow, the idea of hairy arsed miners or car workers
being bullied by a few seems to me plain ridiculous.

--
*My designated driver drove me to drink

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

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:00:43 +0000, David wrote:

because of the nature of the union activity wouldn't belong
to another one.

That is probably the crux of the problem. There are some damned good unions
who look after their members'interests, don't adopt confrontational stances
at the drop of a hat, and actively participate in promoting good business
practices. Equally, there are some pretty poor unions.

Unfortunately, the media tend only to report the items that are
'newsworthy', and good trade unionism ain't particularly newsworthy.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

[The Wanderer] :
That is probably the crux of the problem. There are some damned good
unions who look after their members'interests, don't adopt
confrontational stances at the drop of a hat, and actively
participate in promoting good business practices. Equally, there are
some pretty poor unions.

As Rover workers have found to their cost.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]