Joining a union?

Status
Not open for further replies.


ReidysLeftLug said:
So, if company A buys out company B, company B has employees who are on contracts which are better than those of company A however, company A has 100,000 employees whereas company B has 10,000 employees, what makes more sense, reduce the contracts of those in company B or increase those in company A to the point it may tip your company over the edge? Add to that company B went under because some of unionistsisitsitsis.
Click to expand...
Well that's not what happened though. Company a and b were similar sizes.
 
Reet I'm off , one rousing chorus of the Internationale brothers and sisters and lights out , the dawn awaits
" awake ye starlings from your plumbers, arise ye criminals of want , for reason in revolt now thunders ......zzzzzzz
 
mickonline said:
Not modern H.R. departments, they are fully behind the work force. I'll give you 20-30 years ago a H.R. department was used by the employer for their own means, but from my experience modern H.R.s are far more woker orientated than any union. They treat everybody the same union or not, never judge a person (as union reps do), will take up every case (which union reps will not) and have the Health and Wellbeing of all employees as a goal.
Click to expand...
What a load of utter bollocks!
 
mysticmackem said:
Bit surprising, considering you come from a similar contracting background as me. On the rigs in the early days, we couldn't afford "passengers", had no unions, and anybody not performing was NRB'd (Not Required Back). Hence, (in my opinion) standards, over the many years that I was in the sector, were quite high. It was only later when I had a job in the public sector, that the incompetence that is often protected by unions, was evident.
Click to expand...

I was only a contractor for the first two years of my offshore career and was then taken on by the parent company, Total. Because of the influence of the French unions, we were able to become the first platform in the North Sea to gain collective negotiating rights and union representation for individuals. It might still be the case, I've been retired for ten years but I doubt that the situation has improved. I was a rep for that union and we negotiated many things, some amicably, some less so (with the help of ACAS) but it was a giant leap forward in my view. My take on it is that unions are not just there to decide whether to strike or not and this is true in all walks of life. You may have a decent employer (Total was a very good employer) but if they decide arbitrarily to change something affecting the workforce, why should that workforce not have a say? At one point my employers decided to change the shift pattern because they perceived that they could save money on helicopter flights. This affected the family life of every man on the platform because it changed his rota and hence his time at home. In the end, they had the power to impose it because they controlled the transport but we were able to negotiate a decent financial compensation which sweetened the pill a bit. Can you imagine the effect of each of the men on that platform complaining individually - nil! Going back to non-specific cases, if there is a problem between an individual and the company, the company has a HR department, possibly a legal department and every weapon in the corporate armoury to make it's case. What does an individual have? Even without the collective power, an individual who is a union member has the right to access union resources such as representation, legal advice etc. It helps to level the playing field in a dispute. This is why every worker should be a union member in my view, especially in these times. I despair of the outlook of some of the people who are honest, ordinary working folk on here who have been sold the anti-union bullshit that has become fashionable. Union members are not the enemy within, they are ordinary working people like you and me who just want to be heard. As for your comments about passengers, the NRB system was an iniquitous one which, far from weeding out personnel 'not performing' was (ab)used to fire anybody whose face didn't fit or who raised awkward questions about things like safety issues or working practices.
 
GMB were useless as furk when i needed them the most. Their own solicitor advised me to sue them - but I was to ill to give a damn.
 
rokerexile said:
I was only a contractor for the first two years of my offshore career and was then taken on by the parent company, Total. Because of the influence of the French unions, we were able to become the first platform in the North Sea to gain collective negotiating rights and union representation for individuals. It might still be the case, I've been retired for ten years but I doubt that the situation has improved. I was a rep for that union and we negotiated many things, some amicably, some less so (with the help of ACAS) but it was a giant leap forward in my view. My take on it is that unions are not just there to decide whether to strike or not and this is true in all walks of life. You may have a decent employer (Total was a very good employer) but if they decide arbitrarily to change something affecting the workforce, why should that workforce not have a say? At one point my employers decided to change the shift pattern because they perceived that they could save money on helicopter flights. This affected the family life of every man on the platform because it changed his rota and hence his time at home. In the end, they had the power to impose it because they controlled the transport but we were able to negotiate a decent financial compensation which sweetened the pill a bit. Can you imagine the effect of each of the men on that platform complaining individually - nil! Going back to non-specific cases, if there is a problem between an individual and the company, the company has a HR department, possibly a legal department and every weapon in the corporate armoury to make it's case. What does an individual have? Even without the collective power, an individual who is a union member has the right to access union resources such as representation, legal advice etc. It helps to level the playing field in a dispute. This is why every worker should be a union member in my view, especially in these times. I despair of the outlook of some of the people who are honest, ordinary working folk on here who have been sold the anti-union bullshit that has become fashionable. Union members are not the enemy within, they are ordinary working people like you and me who just want to be heard. As for your comments about passengers, the NRB system was an iniquitous one which, far from weeding out personnel 'not performing' was (ab)used to fire anybody whose face didn't fit or who raised awkward questions about things like safety issues or working practices.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you didn't really need the unions help and could have achieved a similar result with a facebook campaign.

Horatio Pugwash said:
what about when unions stir up trouble then?
Click to expand...

What happens when companies stir up trouble with the workforce then?
 
WHD said:
I'm sure you didn't really need the unions help and could have achieved a similar result with a facebook campaign.



What happens when companies stir up trouble with the workforce then?
Click to expand...
Answer a question with a question

You should be a politician
 
rokerexile said:
Just a statement of fact. HR departments members are employees of the company and as such will ultimately work in favour of their employers.
Click to expand...

So I guess you don't have my experience of the "modern" H.R. departments that I'm speaking about, but just assume that your experience is typical for everybody else?

If you read my previous posts instead of just shouting down one of them you would realise the context in which that post was written.

"What a load of bollocks" a statement of fact? You have just admitted you've been retired 10 years. You do realise the work place has changed since then?
 
mickonline said:
So I guess you don't have my experience of the "modern" H.R. departments that I'm speaking about, but just assume that your experience is typical for everybody else?

If you read my previous posts instead of just shouting down one of them you would realise the context in which that post was written.

"What a load of bollocks" a statement of fact? You have just admitted you've been retired 10 years. You do realise the work place has changed since then?
Click to expand...
Can't really argue with that so I take back my bollocks but I still don't think that HR personnel can be entirely impartial. It's been a while for me since I dealt with HR as you rightly point out. Perhaps I'm wrong. I hope so.
 
rokerexile said:
Can't really argue with that so I take back my bollocks but I still don't think that HR personnel can be entirely impartial. It's been a while for me since I dealt with HR as you rightly point out. Perhaps I'm wrong. I hope so.
Click to expand...

Modern HR departments are for the employer only in my experience. Heard first hand (from HR people I know from different companies) some horror stories of how they manage people out. Have asked them how they feel about this and they just reply that it's their job and what is expected of them without a blink of the eye. We're talking legitimate cases of serious illness here as well. They're pretty inept at the day to day things and dealing with employees in my experience but are utterly ruthless when carrying out a firm's wishes. I think this is down to the fact that they deal only in black and white with no human / pragmatic approach whatsoever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top