Jeremy Clarkson Must Be Sacked!

[Norgethistle]

You work for a private company, you now work longer for less, your company pension has been cut and the retirement age is raised, add to that your state pension isnt worth pennies

 

You work in the public sector, they want you to work longer for less, your pension has been cut and the retirement age is raised, add to that your state pension isnt worth pennies

 

Unfortunatly most of the counrties workforce are in the same boat but being a public sector worker you have greater numbers to make your feeling known.

 

This is the fault of this government and the previous ones, the people running the Britain dont really give a toss about those people living in it

[Grimlock]

You seem to have bought the tory divide and conquer PR claptrap hook, line and sinker.

 

The fact that big businesses started pulling the plug on final salary schemes years ago and shafting their own (in many instances non-unionised workforces) was a total scandal in itself. There should be legislation in place for companies to get decent pension schemes up and running and increase their company level of contributions to their workers pension - no question about it.

 

As for your sister she's right - in no other area of business would you get people giving up their free time to plough it straight back into the company as unpaid overtime. She's not the only one - last month I put in 12 lunchtimes on the way to doing 52 hours extra for nowt ... those 52 hours equating to an extra member of staff in situ for a week and a half.

 

But hey why bother - there are millions of easy target public sector workers out there, doing the jobs nobody else wants, who are ready made cashpoint machines to help the government bail out their illegal wars and occupations, banking ****-ups and FTSE 100 chums - the poor wee peasants won't mind being asked for an extra £100 a month, work 7 years longer all to get a £6800 a year less in pension payments (and some people ask why people are so pissedoff we went on strike).

 

Interesting to note that any increase in my pension payments won't be going to my pension pot at SOPA (Scottish Office Pensions Agency) but will instead go straight to the Treasury. Makes me sad to hear people in the street spouting the tory PR verbatim - repaet something often enough and people will start to believe it eh?

 

Never mind, we're all in this together eh?

 

 

Are you kidding? Those of us unlucky enough to have to work for a living (ie - we're not paid council workers) have been working outwith working hours for years, generations. Evenings, mornings, weekends. Not many take full lunch hours, if at all. And tea breaks? Are you kidding? It's called responsibility and hard work.

 

This country if financially f*cked, and the sooner folk stop whinging about it and accept it the better.

[McKennan]

Clarkson is an entertainment object with an opinion; Daily Mail man writ large. Everyone's entitled to their point of view.

 

I regret my lack of celebrity as I'd happily drive a lap of the Top Gear track and sit with 'Jezzah' in front of a studio audience and call him a 'low-talent, flat-footed English c*nt' in the same flip manner he uses.

 

After all, he's just kidding. Right?

[gianlucatoni]

 

Are you kidding? Those of us unlucky enough to have to work for a living (ie - we're not paid council workers)

 

This country if financially f*cked, and the sooner folk stop whinging about it and accept it the better.

 

As I said before: hook, line and sinker. It's no wonder the country's fecked with attitudes like that.

 

I think you'll find that this country is very far from being financially fu**ed - there's £30bn for the high speed electrification and upgrade of the line from London to Birmingham (to save a few minutes on the journey time), £15bn to make 2 aircraft carriers that are of no use to us whatsoever, £Xbn for wars and occupations in Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya et al and £25-to-£100bn for Trident ... and that's just for starters ... with those being early estimates you can probably multiply the trident and rail line costs x2 at least (using the edinburgh trams calculator) before they are completed - balance that with the removal of child benefit (£1.3bn) which could easily have been afforded amongst other destruction of the welfare state and pushing the sort of PR stuff you've absorbed and repeat like a trained chimp. Manipulation of the people by the media/government cosy combo is quite sad indeed.

 

Hope santa brings you a blue membership card from Millbank for xmas.

[Guy Incognito]

What have the poor gorillas done to deserve that?

You are right. As if having syphilis isn't bad enough they are then asked to f*ck that pube-heided wanksplash.

 

The master of self-interference, Clarkson, has now released a CD - albeit with confessional overtones - to the range of Xmas 'goodies' he'll be expecting his followers to purchase.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkqfa-kaRFM&feature=youtu.be

 

It seems any who has a go, or a joke, whatever you want to call it about the public sector workers is out of touch and so "out of touch" with reality!

 

Me, I kind of relate the feelings between public and private sector similar to the english and scots over the poll tax.

 

Private sector all got their pensions reduced, asked to pay more, work longer, way before the public sector. Was their a voice of decent from them when the rest got shafted first. Then all hell breaks loose when it effects them.

 

I've had a big falling out with my sister over the very issue this week. I work in Insurance industry, she's a social worker. When I had a go about my local council on Facebook, she went mental. Took the high ground as to public sector workers work through t breaks, stay late during shifts, help people. she basically described the same job I do myself but came across as she is a better person than me because she is a public sector worker.

 

The changes made to pensions effect everyone, I've no sympathy whatsoever for the public sector...they had sod all sympathy for me when my pension was changed a year before theirs were.

 

No doubt plenty of those who took offence with Clarkson and want his head, went home that night and put on the latest Frankie Boyle dvd for a laugh!

So, because your company's pension arrangements got f*cked around with and none of you decided to do anything about it then public sector workers are wrong for having the guts to try and stop the same thing happening to them? Sorry but I just don't get that logic.

[The Mighty Quinn]

Would it be fair to say that you like Capitalism, but not capitals?

zzz. god pedantry at my lack of capitals! lol. I also think it's funny that these ignoramuses striking have probably screwed up their pensions by taking a day of on unauthorised absence lol. They also don't realise they are less like likely to get what they want by costing the govt. money that it doesn't have by striking. Bloody idiots!

[gianlucatoni]

zzz. god pedantry at my lack of capitals! lol. I also think it's funny that these ignoramuses striking have probably screwed up their pensions by taking a day of on unauthorised absence lol. They also don't realise they are less like likely to get what they want by costing the govt. money that it doesn't have by striking. Bloody idiots!

 

 

mmmm ... except that by taking the day off we don't get paid by the government and by striking the buildings were mostly shut so reduced heating and lighting bills - another one who believes the 'strikers cost us £500m by striking' bullshegite PR from millbank tower

 

... can you logically explain how we ignorami cost the gov't money?

[Woodstock Jag]

mmmm ... except that by taking the day off we don't get paid by the government and by striking the buildings were mostly shut so reduced heating and lighting bills - another one who believes the 'strikers cost us £500m by striking' bullshegite PR from millbank tower

 

... can you logically explain how we ignorami cost the gov't money?

 

Many respects. Firstly buildings don't all shut. Secondly, it creates a backlog of administrative functions. Thirdly, there's opportunity cost. Take for example the disruption to the Subway in Glasgow. They lost the fares of thousands of people and they can't get that back because, as it happens, Subway passengers don't need to get to their destination on November 30th at any future date.

 

Then there's the knock-on effect of school closures. Parents have to stay at home to look after their kids, bringing about an opportunity cost to businesses in the private sector whose employees don't turn up to work.

 

Striking did cost the economy in exactly the same way as the Royal Wedding disruption. As someone who did not agree with the strikes, even I recognise that's sort of the point. Inconvenience. Nothing inconveniences quite like being hit in the pocket.

[The Mighty Quinn]

Many respects. Firstly buildings don't all shut. Secondly, it creates a backlog of administrative functions. Thirdly, there's opportunity cost. Take for example the disruption to the Subway in Glasgow. They lost the fares of thousands of people and they can't get that back because, as it happens, Subway passengers don't need to get to their destination on November 30th at any future date.

 

Then there's the knock-on effect of school closures. Parents have to stay at home to look after their kids, bringing about an opportunity cost to businesses in the private sector whose employees don't turn up to work.

 

Striking did cost the economy in exactly the same way as the Royal Wedding disruption. As someone who did not agree with the strikes, even I recognise that's sort of the point. Inconvenience. Nothing inconveniences quite like being hit in the pocket.

Amen brother, thanks for saving me writing out everything i was thinking by reading my mind!

[Blackpool Jags]

zzz. god pedantry at my lack of capitals! lol. I also think it's funny that these ignoramuses striking have probably screwed up their pensions by taking a day of on unauthorised absence lol. They also don't realise they are less like likely to get what they want by costing the govt. money that it doesn't have by striking. Bloody idiots!

 

What a good post. I hadn't reckoned on that, but had I done I would've woken up to the realisation that not doing anything at all about the hellish pension reforms was the obvious way to get the Government to give us what we want.

 

I'm not especially smart, but I'm always open to first class logic like this. Cheers, Mighty.

[Phoenix]

What a good post. I hadn't reckoned on that, but had I done I would've woken up to the realisation that not doing anything at all about the hellish pension reforms was the obvious way to get the Government to give us what we want.

 

I'm not especially smart, but I'm always open to first class logic like this. Cheers, Mighty.

Why not organise a work to rule instead of striking? That way both union and non union members can take part, nobody loses their days wage and IMVHO it would have a far greater effect than striking.

 

Of course the only downside would be that the unions wouldn't have been able to have their political strike and the chance to bully and abuse their colleagues.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Phoenix

[McKennan]

Why not organise a work to rule instead of striking? That way both union and non union members can take part, nobody loses their days wage and IMVHO it would have a far greater effect than striking.

 

Of course the only downside would be that the unions wouldn't have been able to have their political strike and the chance to bully and abuse their colleagues.

 

Nice one. Do you 'like' your own Facebook posts?

[Blackpool Jags]

Why not organise a work to rule instead of striking? That way both union and non union members can take part, nobody loses their days wage and IMVHO it would have a far greater effect than striking.

 

Of course the only downside would be that the unions wouldn't have been able to have their political strike and the chance to bully and abuse their colleagues.

 

 

A work to rule, besides being impractical on a national scale, can be deemed to be industrial action depending on the degree and type of action intended to be undertaken. Therefore, the usual labyrinth of procedure would have be negotiated; this would, as always, involve only trade union members - those individuals who make monthly contributions and, occasionally, forego a day's (and sometimes more) pay in furtherance of improved pay and conditions.

 

While union members, by virtue of their contributions and voluntary activity within their union's structures and in the workplace, achieve reasonable pay & conditions, health & safety procedures, a fair disciplinary procedure, a fair grievance and resolution procedure, decent standards of sickness absence management, occupational sick pay (where applicable), operational policies which outlaw discrimination in the workplace, reasonable time off with pay for carer responsibilities and a host of other benefits for the benefit of ALL staff, non-members contribute the square root of zilch. Irritatingly, however, these individuals are quite content to enjoy all the above benefits fought for by others.

 

These freeloaders - ie those staff members who consciously choose not to be members of an accredited and recognised trade union - deserve nothing but soak up everything. Scabs? Absolutely!

 

By the way, are you aware of any public sector worker who was coerced into voting for the strike action which took place last Wednesday? If so, I'd like to hear more about that; if not, please do us a favour and drop the 'bullying' tag nonsense.

[gianlucatoni]

Many respects. Firstly buildings don't all shut. Secondly, it creates a backlog of administrative functions. Thirdly, there's opportunity cost. Take for example the disruption to the Subway in Glasgow. They lost the fares of thousands of people and they can't get that back because, as it happens, Subway passengers don't need to get to their destination on November 30th at any future date.

Inconvenience. Nothing inconveniences quite like being hit in the pocket.

 

Never said they all shut - if you had read it properly it would have read 'buildings were mostly shut' which they were.

 

And then there we have it from the horses mouth - poor wee souls like yourself inconvenienced for a single day while those who work their baws off serving you and your like are shafted and face having to work for years extra and take a shafting at the end by getting less back and pension poverty.

 

... next time Hutton raises his head I'll be thinking about poor wee you no getting a shot on this towns wee two-bob subway and maybe either having to take a wee bus instead or, heaven forfend, actually walk to your destination. Maybe if you walked you wouldn't have taken a hit in the pocket as you alluded to.

 

Infact I'm so concerned about your plight I've already started a draft letter ...

 

Dear Unison/PCS/EIS/NASUWT/GMB et al,

Don't bother having any more strikes over pension reform - we can really make the tories sit up and listen by having a work to rule and not inconveniencing the masses (as recanted by the MQ). In addition if we sit tight we wouldn't inconvenience wee WJ as he might not catch the 2.34pm clockwork orange from Kelvinbridge to Buchanan Street.

You might also avoid inconveniencing businesses as some of their workforce might come out in sympathy have a day off as, despite being private sector and so far advanced of us public sector peasants, they are not able to plan ahead effectively - especially given during the last industrial action on 30th Nov they had over a month to arrange someone to watch their weans who were off school but obviously couldn't be arsed.

Yours,

Concerned member

Edited December 4, 2011 by gianlucatoni

[Mr Scruff]

A work to rule, besides being impractical on a national scale, can be deemed to be industrial action depending on the degree and type of action intended to be undertaken. Therefore, the usual labyrinth of procedure would have be negotiated; this would, as always, involve only trade union members - those individuals who make monthly contributions and, occasionally, forego a day's (and sometimes more) pay in furtherance of improved pay and conditions.

 

While union members, by virtue of their contributions and voluntary activity within their union's structures and in the workplace, achieve reasonable pay & conditions, health & safety procedures, a fair disciplinary procedure, a fair grievance and resolution procedure, decent standards of sickness absence management, occupational sick pay (where applicable), operational policies which outlaw discrimination in the workplace, reasonable time off with pay for carer responsibilities and a host of other benefits for the benefit of ALL staff, non-members contribute the square root of zilch. Irritatingly, however, these individuals are quite content to enjoy all the above benefits fought for by others.

 

These freeloaders - ie those staff members who consciously choose not to be members of an accredited and recognised trade union - deserve nothing but soak up everything. Scabs? Absolutely!

 

By the way, are you aware of any public sector worker who was coerced into voting for the strike action which took place last Wednesday? If so, I'd like to hear more about that; if not, please do us a favour and drop the 'bullying' tag nonsense.

So if I decide that fellow work mates 'deserve to soak everything up' based on criteria that I decide (as you are doing) then my behaviour towards them will be excused. Interesting perspective...

[Grimlock]

As I said before: hook, line and sinker. It's no wonder the country's fecked with attitudes like that.

 

I think you'll find that this country is very far from being financially fu**ed - there's £30bn for the high speed electrification and upgrade of the line from London to Birmingham (to save a few minutes on the journey time), £15bn to make 2 aircraft carriers that are of no use to us whatsoever, £Xbn for wars and occupations in Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya et al and £25-to-£100bn for Trident ... and that's just for starters ... with those being early estimates you can probably multiply the trident and rail line costs x2 at least (using the edinburgh trams calculator) before they are completed - balance that with the removal of child benefit (£1.3bn) which could easily have been afforded amongst other destruction of the welfare state and pushing the sort of PR stuff you've absorbed and repeat like a trained chimp. Manipulation of the people by the media/government cosy combo is quite sad indeed.

 

Hope santa brings you a blue membership card from Millbank for xmas.

 

Well done in gaining access to information available to all via Google. And well done at looking at things so entirely simplistically you've missed the intrinsic point to much of the spending you've identified.

 

Spending waste, whether at a high or a low level, needed to be identified and eradicated. We, as a country, have long since known this particular waste needed to caught and dealt with - for moral as well as financial reasons.

 

And no, I've personaly never voted Blue, nor am likely to. However, this is an area the current government/coalition have my (and most fair minded individuals) full support in.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Grimlock

[Phoenix]

A work to rule, besides being impractical on a national scale, can be deemed to be industrial action depending on the degree and type of action intended to be undertaken. Therefore, the usual labyrinth of procedure would have be negotiated; this would, as always, involve only trade union members - those individuals who make monthly contributions and, occasionally, forego a day's (and sometimes more) pay in furtherance of improved pay and conditions.

 

While union members, by virtue of their contributions and voluntary activity within their union's structures and in the workplace, achieve reasonable pay & conditions, health & safety procedures, a fair disciplinary procedure, a fair grievance and resolution procedure, decent standards of sickness absence management, occupational sick pay (where applicable), operational policies which outlaw discrimination in the workplace, reasonable time off with pay for carer responsibilities and a host of other benefits for the benefit of ALL staff, non-members contribute the square root of zilch. Irritatingly, however, these individuals are quite content to enjoy all the above benefits fought for by others.

 

These freeloaders - ie those staff members who consciously choose not to be members of an accredited and recognised trade union - deserve nothing but soak up everything. Scabs? Absolutely!

 

By the way, are you aware of any public sector worker who was coerced into voting for the strike action which took place last Wednesday? If so, I'd like to hear more about that; if not, please do us a favour and drop the 'bullying' tag nonsense.

If union membership is so wonderful then why isn't everyone a member? Maybe partly because of the attitude shown in your post e.g. Anyone who doesn't agree with union policy is either a freeloader or a scab ( or maybe both).

If the majority of the workforce in the UK aren't in a union does that mean that either the Union isn't getting their message across or that their message just isn't relevent any more. Very easy to sit with people who agree with your point of view(thats why forums are so popular). Far more difficult to try and explain that point of view to others who might disagree with you. Far easier to call them scabs and freeloaders and avoid any real discussion.

 

Hate to tell you this as i'm sure as a union rep you will already know, verbal abuse i.e. calling a colleague a scab is treated the same under law as physical abuse and is regarded in any workplace as bullying ( incase you try to say that this would never happen just read a copy of an email sent from Jon Rogers, branch secretary Unison, South Lambeth). Of course its far easier to have a go at Clarkson for his jokes.

 

 

As a union rep would you represent a member of your union who chose to broke last weeks strike as vigourously as you would someone who did strike?

[Guy Incognito]

Why not organise a work to rule instead of striking? That way both union and non union members can take part, nobody loses their days wage and IMVHO it would have a far greater effect than striking.

 

Of course the only downside would be that the unions wouldn't have been able to have their political strike and the chance to bully and abuse their colleagues.

Because scabs will still snaffle up any overtime, acting-up opportunities etc. that are going, as a work to rule imposed (for want of a better word) by the TU would not apply to them. Thus, the effect is nullified.

 

If union membership is so wonderful then why isn't everyone a member? Maybe partly because of the attitude shown in your post e.g. Anyone who doesn't agree with union policy is either a freeloader or a scab ( or maybe both).

If the majority of the workforce in the UK aren't in a union does that mean that either the Union isn't getting their message across or that their message just isn't relevent any more. Very easy to sit with people who agree with your point of view(thats why forums are so popular). Far more difficult to try and explain that point of view to others who might disagree with you. Far easier to call them scabs and freeloaders and avoid any real discussion.

 

Hate to tell you this as i'm sure as a union rep you will already know, verbal abuse i.e. calling a colleague a scab is treated the same under law as physical abuse and is regarded in any workplace as bullying ( incase you try to say that this would never happen just read a copy of an email sent from Jon Rogers, branch secretary Unison, South Lambeth). Of course its far easier to have a go at Clarkson for his jokes.

 

 

As a union rep would you represent a member of your union who chose to broke last weeks strike as vigourously as you would someone who did strike?

I don't think anyone should be made to join a trade union if they don't want to. Personally speaking, if someone has a conscientious objection to being in the union, e.g they completely disagree with the concept of trade unions, or they are dyed in the wool Tories who think that everything being put forward by Mr Cameron and co is fine and dandy, then I have a certain degree of respect for that. I don't necessarily agree with it but I can respect other people's viewpoints.

 

However, from personal experience, the main reason people are dirty scab bassas non-union members is simply because they begrudge paying membership fees (which amount to about £5 per month, roughly). Greedy, self-interested people.

[Phoenix]

Because scabs will still snaffle up any overtime, acting-up opportunities etc. that are going, as a work to rule imposed (for want of a better word) by the TU would not apply to them. Thus, the effect is nullified.

 

 

I don't think anyone should be made to join a trade union if they don't want to. Personally speaking, if someone has a conscientious objection to being in the union, e.g they completely disagree with the concept of trade unions, or they are dyed in the wool Tories who think that everything being put forward by Mr Cameron and co is fine and dandy, then I have a certain degree of respect for that. I don't necessarily agree with it but I can respect other people's viewpoints.

 

However, from personal experience, the main reason people are dirty scab bassas non-union members is simply because they begrudge paying membership fees (which amount to about £5 per month, roughly). Greedy, self-interested people.

Unlike those hard working public sector workers who went on strike for money. Dress it up any way you like but bottom line was money.

 

Again we see the attitude that has caused Union membership to fall year after year. Maybe if the Unions started being relevent to workers then they would join but if they cant even persuade people to part with a fiver a month for all the great benefits it brings then maybe its time to call it a day.

[Blackpool Jags]

If union membership is so wonderful then why isn't everyone a member? Maybe partly because of the attitude shown in your post e.g. Anyone who doesn't agree with union policy is either a freeloader or a scab ( or maybe both).

If the majority of the workforce in the UK aren't in a union does that mean that either the Union isn't getting their message across or that their message just isn't relevent any more. Very easy to sit with people who agree with your point of view(thats why forums are so popular). Far more difficult to try and explain that point of view to others who might disagree with you. Far easier to call them scabs and freeloaders and avoid any real discussion.

 

Hate to tell you this as i'm sure as a union rep you will already know, verbal abuse i.e. calling a colleague a scab is treated the same under law as physical abuse and is regarded in any workplace as bullying ( incase you try to say that this would never happen just read a copy of an email sent from Jon Rogers, branch secretary Unison, South Lambeth). Of course its far easier to have a go at Clarkson for his jokes.

 

 

As a union rep would you represent a member of your union who chose to broke last weeks strike as vigourously as you would someone who did strike?

 

 

As GI succinctly explains, most non-union members (in the public sector at any rate) choose to be so because they're either too stingy to part with c. a fiver a month, or they tend to give us the "I can fight my own battles, mate" line. The former stance has been jettisoned by more of them that I can recall in recent weeks, since the Pensions campaign began in earnest; our office has been deluged with new applications to join. So, ironically, thanks go to Lansley, Cameron and the others for pushing the apathetic towards us.

 

A fact that sits uncomfortably with those of an anti-union disposition is that Trade Unions are highly democratic organisations. My own union, Unison, is completely democratic in all its complex structures and acts on policy set at its annual National Delegate Conference: "the supreme decision-making body of the union". That isn't to say that all individuals operating within the union are divine individuals - of course not - but they're all accountable to their members. Stewards, branch officers, sector committee delegates, National Executive Council members and other representatives are all elected by postal ballot either annually or on a two-yearly basis. The General Secretary's job is an elected position.

 

Re your point about the legality of calling someone a scab: I am only too aware of what the regs tell us we can and can't shout at people. Fortunately, though, the thought police haven't got into my head yet, so I'll continue to think what I want of the freeloaders who love to take and shy away from giving. I would respect their right to be outside the union a whole lot more readily if these people didn't take everything that the union negotiated for ALL staff in a particular industry or service.

 

I don't think that workers are inherently anti-union; not when they start to see what we're really about. The main reason given for not being in a union is that they haven't been asked to join; this is an established fact. We should also understand that our traditional manufacturing base was dismantled by Thatcher and replaced by a deeply fragmented service sector. This was instrumental in reduced national union membership. Other issues lay behind that event too, but not going into that right now.

 

Would I represent a member at a hearing who was a strike breaker with the same gusto as I would represent a striking brother or sister? Well, my rule book states clearly that the union will provide representation for all members at formal hearings eg disciplinary. I would therefore provide representation on behalf of said strike breaking member in accordance with the union's rules. That's all I could reasonably say on an internet forum.

[crazy davie]

I would respect their right to be outside the union a whole lot more readily if these people didn't take everything that the union negotiated for ALL staff in a particular industry or service.

That's it precisely.

[Phoenix]

As GI succinctly explains, most non-union members (in the public sector at any rate) choose to be so because they're either too stingy to part with c. a fiver a month, or they tend to give us the "I can fight my own battles, mate" line. The former stance has been jettisoned by more of them that I can recall in recent weeks, since the Pensions campaign began in earnest; our office has been deluged with new applications to join. So, ironically, thanks go to Lansley, Cameron and the others for pushing the apathetic towards us.

 

A fact that sits uncomfortably with those of an anti-union disposition is that Trade Unions are highly democratic organisations. My own union, Unison, is completely democratic in all its complex structures and acts on policy set at its annual National Delegate Conference: "the supreme decision-making body of the union". That isn't to say that all individuals operating within the union are divine individuals - of course not - but they're all accountable to their members. Stewards, branch officers, sector committee delegates, National Executive Council members and other representatives are all elected by postal ballot either annually or on a two-yearly basis. The General Secretary's job is an elected position.

 

Re your point about the legality of calling someone a scab: I am only too aware of what the regs tell us we can and can't shout at people. Fortunately, though, the thought police haven't got into my head yet, so I'll continue to think what I want of the freeloaders who love to take and shy away from giving. I would respect their right to be outside the union a whole lot more readily if these people didn't take everything that the union negotiated for ALL staff in a particular industry or service.

 

I don't think that workers are inherently anti-union; not when they start to see what we're really about. The main reason given for not being in a union is that they haven't been asked to join; this is an established fact. We should also understand that our traditional manufacturing base was dismantled by Thatcher and replaced by a deeply fragmented service sector. This was instrumental in reduced national union membership. Other issues lay behind that event too, but not going into that right now.

 

Would I represent a member at a hearing who was a strike breaker with the same gusto as I would represent a striking brother or sister? Well, my rule book states clearly that the union will provide representation for all members at formal hearings eg disciplinary. I would therefore provide representation on behalf of said strike breaking member in accordance with the union's rules. That's all I could reasonably say on an internet forum.

 

I'd love to live in the same world as you seem to occupy. Where everything is black or white, good or bad. Where everyone either has to agree with your point of view or they are clearly in the wrong and they deserve everything they get. Must be similar to being an old firm fan (especially the bit about not saying what you really think because you know its against the law, but you still think you are right)

For someone who ridicules religion so strongly you cant seem to accept the same criticism about unions, that they are out of date and unwilling to change archane attitudes.

Unions cant seem to accept that not everyone believes that they are always right. I understand that you feel that you are doing the right thing and I respect that. Pity the unions dont respect others point of view as well.

Look at the last big strike in the UK, the miners strike, (it will all be blamed on Thatcher by the unions) where the unions stance of absolutely no pit closures cost the whole industry to suffer. Had the unions been willing to compromise even slighty and allowed some pits that would have cost more to keep open than they were ever going to be worth then maybe there would still be a mining industry in the UK. But by refusing to compromise it cost miners (their members) their jobs. How many union leaders lost their wages or jobs due to that strike? How many union leaders lost a days wage due to strikes last month?

 

As for the usual sob story about these poor union members earning all these benefits and the non union members just taking them why doesn't your union try for legislation to change the law and allow different pay rises etc for union and non union members?

[Woodstock Jag]

If the Unions are so upset about free riders, don't campaign for their work and pay conditions. Let them fight their own battles. If you're so important they'll join you. Otherwise they'll fight their own battles just like they say they will. And they'll probably be absolutely fine.

[Blackpool Jags]

Re above posts:

 

Phoenix -

Actually, I’d prefer to live in your cosy world: a place where Trade Unions are unnecessary and irrelevant. Fact is, though, unions were born out of necessity and continue to be highly relevant in the real world of today.

People join unions for a range of reasons, and if they had no concerns with pay & conditions of service, Health & Safety, discrimination in the workplace, legal protection, raising concerns at work and Lifelong Learning to name but a few, they simply wouldn’t join. But in this real world, there are so many reasons why ordinary, decent people see a need to join us and they continue to do so in their droves.

 

Reference your derisory remark about “the usual sob story”, the law does not allow for two-tier pay and conditions in the workplace, therefore the hard-won deals, fought for by Trade Union officials on the back of members’ contributions, are enjoyed by all: decent people and freeloaders alike. Typical comment from Johnny Freeloader when approached about joining the union: “Why should I when I’ll get everything you mugs negotiate anyway?”.

 

WJ -

 

Surely you as a law student, despite your political eccentricity, must realise how silly your comment - “If the unions are so upset about free riders, don’t campaign for their work pay and conditions” – is. See the answer above.

The “battles” that Johnny Freeloader is referring to when being approached to join are disciplinary, sickness absence management and capability cases which he naively believes will never happen to him, and that if they do, he can handle them. Until, that is, the case papers land on his desk!! He hits the panic button, rings us pleading for us to let him join, making out that he always intended to join and that his uncle was a steward with the GMB in the ‘80s. We give him an application form and tell him he’s doing the right thing. He displays a look of genuine relief and asks when we can meet him properly to prepare his case. We dutifully remind that there’s a rule which states that no pre-existing case may be taken on by the branch. His face has now turned a funny purplish red colour as he storms off in a fit of indignation, reminding us what a bunch of cnuts we are and how we can stick our shitey union up our anal cavities.

 

Fortunately, for every case of Johnny Freeloader there are dozens of decent employees who want to do the sensible thing and who approach us about joining. They may then go on to participate in our democratic structures, sometimes becoming a workplace rep, Health & Safety rep, Lifelong Learning rep, conference delegate or simply enjoy the peace of mind knowing that their union will be there for them should they need to call upon us.

[Mr Scruff]

Out of curiosity BJ, presumably you not only think closed shops should be legal, but presumably you believe they should be compulsory? Or am I reading your argument wrong?