Joining a union?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Not my experience.
 


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.

Thought this thread was done, but have to reply to this. You weren't alone, other companies changed rotas to cut down on helicopter flights, not only to save money but to cut down on the actual number of flights, due to safety. The industry has had a few helicopter accidents, and anything that cut down on the number of flights that have to made by personnel is a good thing, for everyone. We certainly didn't kick up a stink about it, but I suppose you and your union needed to kick up about something.
Some of what you have said, is very strange "This affected the family life of every man on the platform" - of course your family life is affected, it's the nature of the job, you're away from home for 2 weeks, in some cases a month a time, and that's one of the reasons it pays so well.
Following on from that, because it pays so well there were chancers trying to get into the industry, especially in construction phases, where we had lads turning up (in some cases, claiming to be pipefitters), who had never been trained as such, and were just trying their luck, what I call ""passengers" They were dealt with swiftly by the NRB. Can you imagine them being afforded some union protection! Likewise, yes I agree the rigs were self-policing, if a bloke came out and did not get on with the lads, (his face didn't fit as you say), chances are he wouldn't last long, he'd either quit next trip or be NRB'd. The reason for this, is as you know on the rigs you rely on each other all the time, and have to work as a team especially in emergencies. Anyone who doesn't communicate or get on. is a liability, the last thing you'd want is a union trying to keep him there! Also in the early days if you failed to turn up for your trip, or missed a check-in, you most probably would be sacked, and rightly so, why? because the bloke that his waiting for you to come on, in all probability would have to stay on the rig an extra week. Harsh, but not many people missed check-in. Would your union protect people who didn't turn up?
So all in all, your union has done very little apart from whinge about a rota change, which happens all the time, every year in fact, to accommodate the Christmas/New year holidays.
I have to agree with another other poster on here, who has drawn attention to your "Bollocks" statements, although I recognise that you have since had the courtesy to withdraw it. If this is your attitude to anyone who has a differing opinion to yourself, I'm surprised you weren't NRB'd offshore, or at least were relieved of a few teeth back on the beach, but there again you had union protection!
 
HR are *unts.
At least the ones I dealt with.
Lying, cheating, immoral, bast**d fu((ing tunts.
 
Thought this thread was done, but have to reply to this. You weren't alone, other companies changed rotas to cut down on helicopter flights, not only to save money but to cut down on the actual number of flights, due to safety. The industry has had a few helicopter accidents, and anything that cut down on the number of flights that have to made by personnel is a good thing, for everyone. We certainly didn't kick up a stink about it, but I suppose you and your union needed to kick up about something.
Some of what you have said, is very strange "This affected the family life of every man on the platform" - of course your family life is affected, it's the nature of the job, you're away from home for 2 weeks, in some cases a month a time, and that's one of the reasons it pays so well.
Following on from that, because it pays so well there were chancers trying to get into the industry, especially in construction phases, where we had lads turning up (in some cases, claiming to be pipefitters), who had never been trained as such, and were just trying their luck, what I call ""passengers" They were dealt with swiftly by the NRB. Can you imagine them being afforded some union protection! Likewise, yes I agree the rigs were self-policing, if a bloke came out and did not get on with the lads, (his face didn't fit as you say), chances are he wouldn't last long, he'd either quit next trip or be NRB'd. The reason for this, is as you know on the rigs you rely on each other all the time, and have to work as a team especially in emergencies. Anyone who doesn't communicate or get on. is a liability, the last thing you'd want is a union trying to keep him there! Also in the early days if you failed to turn up for your trip, or missed a check-in, you most probably would be sacked, and rightly so, why? because the bloke that his waiting for you to come on, in all probability would have to stay on the rig an extra week. Harsh, but not many people missed check-in. Would your union protect people who didn't turn up?
So all in all, your union has done very little apart from whinge about a rota change, which happens all the time, every year in fact, to accommodate the Christmas/New year holidays.
I have to agree with another other poster on here, who has drawn attention to your "Bollocks" statements, although I recognise that you have since had the courtesy to withdraw it. If this is your attitude to anyone who has a differing opinion to yourself, I'm surprised you weren't NRB'd offshore, or at least were relieved of a few teeth back on the beach, but there again you had union protection!

So you think a union would try and keep people in the job who were basically lying about their trade and could quite possibly have been a liability for safety? Do you know of any instances of this happening?
 
So you think a union would try and keep people in the job who were basically lying about their trade and could quite possibly have been a liability for safety? Do you know of any instances of this happening?

That's not what I said, read the context of the threads, and you'll find that Rokerexile made the point (in his view) every worker should be a union member. What I said was "can you imagine them ( the chancers) being afforded union protection".
 
That's not what I said, read the context of the threads, and you'll find that Rokerexile made the point (in his view) every worker should be a union member. What I said was "can you imagine them ( the chancers) being afforded union protection".


Yeah, but a union would know it didn't have a leg to stand on if it tried to keep people in a position who were dishonest in their claims when they got the job and were not qualified to do it. Therefore I don't think your point is relevant, unless you know of an instance where a union has tried to do this?
 
Yeah, but a union would know it didn't have a leg to stand on if it tried to keep people in a position who were dishonest in their claims when they got the job and were not qualified to do it. Therefore I don't think your point is relevant, unless you know of an instance where a union has tried to do this?

I think you need to re-read my post I said "Can you imagine them (the chancers) being afforded union protection" in the context that I certainly couldn't imagine it. This is why the non union NRB system had them ousted without delay, as soon as they were rumbled, which wasn't long to be fair.
 
Thought this thread was done, but have to reply to this. You weren't alone, other companies changed rotas to cut down on helicopter flights, not only to save money but to cut down on the actual number of flights, due to safety. The industry has had a few helicopter accidents, and anything that cut down on the number of flights that have to made by personnel is a good thing, for everyone. We certainly didn't kick up a stink about it, but I suppose you and your union needed to kick up about something.
Some of what you have said, is very strange "This affected the family life of every man on the platform" - of course your family life is affected, it's the nature of the job, you're away from home for 2 weeks, in some cases a month a time, and that's one of the reasons it pays so well.
Following on from that, because it pays so well there were chancers trying to get into the industry, especially in construction phases, where we had lads turning up (in some cases, claiming to be pipefitters), who had never been trained as such, and were just trying their luck, what I call ""passengers" They were dealt with swiftly by the NRB. Can you imagine them being afforded some union protection! Likewise, yes I agree the rigs were self-policing, if a bloke came out and did not get on with the lads, (his face didn't fit as you say), chances are he wouldn't last long, he'd either quit next trip or be NRB'd. The reason for this, is as you know on the rigs you rely on each other all the time, and have to work as a team especially in emergencies. Anyone who doesn't communicate or get on. is a liability, the last thing you'd want is a union trying to keep him there! Also in the early days if you failed to turn up for your trip, or missed a check-in, you most probably would be sacked, and rightly so, why? because the bloke that his waiting for you to come on, in all probability would have to stay on the rig an extra week. Harsh, but not many people missed check-in. Would your union protect people who didn't turn up?
So all in all, your union has done very little apart from whinge about a rota change, which happens all the time, every year in fact, to accommodate the Christmas/New year holidays.
I have to agree with another other poster on here, who has drawn attention to your "Bollocks" statements, although I recognise that you have since had the courtesy to withdraw it. If this is your attitude to anyone who has a differing opinion to yourself, I'm surprised you weren't NRB'd offshore, or at least were relieved of a few teeth back on the beach, but there again you had union protection!

I'm not going to reply in detail to all your points because clearly you are anti-union, possibly management and it is clear that whatever I say is not going to alter your viewpoint. However, a couple of points need to be addressed; Firstly Safety was often quoted by management when something unpopular was being mooted, so that won't wash. Secondly, the change in rotas was from 2 on 3 off to 2 on 2 off so rather more of an impact than a Christmas/New Year turnaround and it meant we were all flying twice every month instead of every five weeks so obviously less safe by your reckoning. The way they were able to cut down on helicopter flights was by losing the 'swing shift' man, i.e. one man in 3 was no longer required, another nice little cost saver! The third and final thing I would like to say is that you have no absolutely no idea of the things the union managed to achieve for its members either collectively or individually or what our relations with Management/HR were like (actually they were very good for the most part) so your remark about us just kicking up or whingeing about a rota change are of no relevance. I'm proud of what I achieved as a union rep (unpaid by the way) and it pains me when I come across working people with anti-union views because I think they are only fooling themselves and making it easy for unscrupulous employers to exploit them.
 
I think you need to re-read my post I said "Can you imagine them (the chancers) being afforded union protection" in the context that I certainly couldn't imagine it. This is why the non union NRB system had them ousted without delay, as soon as they were rumbled, which wasn't long to be fair.


I think you need to read mine again. They wouldn't get union protection. I'll give you a clue, the unions are known as TRADE unions. I can't imagine other workers who were part of the required trade taking action to keep workers who were not of that trade and weren't supposed to be there.
 
I'm not going to reply in detail to all your points because clearly you are anti-union, possibly management and it is clear that whatever I say is not going to alter your viewpoint. However, a couple of points need to be addressed; Firstly Safety was often quoted by management when something unpopular was being mooted, so that won't wash. Secondly, the change in rotas was from 2 on 3 off to 2 on 2 off so rather more of an impact than a Christmas/New Year turnaround and it meant we were all flying twice every month instead of every five weeks so obviously less safe by your reckoning. The way they were able to cut down on helicopter flights was by losing the 'swing shift' man, i.e. one man in 3 was no longer required, another nice little cost saver! The third and final thing I would like to say is that you have no absolutely no idea of the things the union managed to achieve for its members either collectively or individually or what our relations with Management/HR were like (actually they were very good for the most part) so your remark about us just kicking up or whingeing about a rota change are of no relevance. I'm proud of what I achieved as a union rep (unpaid by the way) and it pains me when I come across working people with anti-union views because I think they are only fooling themselves and making it easy for unscrupulous employers to exploit them.

I guess we'll agree to disagree, which was always going to be the outcome. I'm signing off now for 6 weeks or so, enjoying hols abroad, which I can only afford by having been really badly exploited ;)
 
I'm not going to reply in detail to all your points because clearly you are anti-union, possibly management and it is clear that whatever I say is not going to alter your viewpoint. However, a couple of points need to be addressed; Firstly Safety was often quoted by management when something unpopular was being mooted, so that won't wash. Secondly, the change in rotas was from 2 on 3 off to 2 on 2 off so rather more of an impact than a Christmas/New Year turnaround and it meant we were all flying twice every month instead of every five weeks so obviously less safe by your reckoning. The way they were able to cut down on helicopter flights was by losing the 'swing shift' man, i.e. one man in 3 was no longer required, another nice little cost saver! The third and final thing I would like to say is that you have no absolutely no idea of the things the union managed to achieve for its members either collectively or individually or what our relations with Management/HR were like (actually they were very good for the most part) so your remark about us just kicking up or whingeing about a rota change are of no relevance. I'm proud of what I achieved as a union rep (unpaid by the way) and it pains me when I come across working people with anti-union views because I think they are only fooling themselves and making it easy for unscrupulous employers to exploit them.

As @Teed has already stated, we'll end up with the society we deserve. He may be past caring (I don't blame him) but I'm not when I have two kids that before long will be in the job market.
 
I'm not going to reply in detail to all your points because clearly you are anti-union, possibly management and it is clear that whatever I say is not going to alter your viewpoint. However, a couple of points need to be addressed; Firstly Safety was often quoted by management when something unpopular was being mooted, so that won't wash. Secondly, the change in rotas was from 2 on 3 off to 2 on 2 off so rather more of an impact than a Christmas/New Year turnaround and it meant we were all flying twice every month instead of every five weeks so obviously less safe by your reckoning. The way they were able to cut down on helicopter flights was by losing the 'swing shift' man, i.e. one man in 3 was no longer required, another nice little cost saver! The third and final thing I would like to say is that you have no absolutely no idea of the things the union managed to achieve for its members either collectively or individually or what our relations with Management/HR were like (actually they were very good for the most part) so your remark about us just kicking up or whingeing about a rota change are of no relevance. I'm proud of what I achieved as a union rep (unpaid by the way) and it pains me when I come across working people with anti-union views because I think they are only fooling themselves and making it easy for unscrupulous employers to exploit them.
Whilst I don't disagree with your views entirely, most people replying on this thread are basing their opinions on their own personal experiences when dealing with trade unions.
I spent 20 + years working in factories that didnt have any union members and all were spot on and a pleasure to work for.The one and only factory that did have a strong union in was a right twat to work at.The little union rep spent half his time stirring up rumours and promising that he would sort this and that out.He did have one of the better jobs going as well...and when the company announced a very generous voluntary redundancy package ..he was first to bail out....so much for we are in it together my brothers.
Now I have businesses and employ people I have noticed that the majority of workers that seem to be the least co operative and have a poor attitude seem to be the ones that join the union....not all but a large percentage.
Took one worker down the disiplinary route and sacked her...the gmb area rep represented her at the disiplinary meeting and came with an attitude that was aggressive and rude.She walked out the meeting with the lass and her last words were "we have enough to make a case against them".......obviously not as I never heard back.
That kind off thing puts you off unions and taints all the good stuff they have done
 
Whilst I don't disagree with your views entirely, most people replying on this thread are basing their opinions on their own personal experiences when dealing with trade unions.
I spent 20 + years working in factories that didnt have any union members and all were spot on and a pleasure to work for.The one and only factory that did have a strong union in was a right twat to work at.The little union rep spent half his time stirring up rumours and promising that he would sort this and that out.He did have one of the better jobs going as well...and when the company announced a very generous voluntary redundancy package ..he was first to bail out....so much for we are in it together my brothers.
Now I have businesses and employ people I have noticed that the majority of workers that seem to be the least co operative and have a poor attitude seem to be the ones that join the union....not all but a large percentage.
Took one worker down the disiplinary route and sacked her...the gmb area rep represented her at the disiplinary meeting and came with an attitude that was aggressive and rude.She walked out the meeting with the lass and her last words were "we have enough to make a case against them".......obviously not as I never heard back.
That kind off thing puts you off unions and taints all the good stuff they have done

Out of interest, what for?
 
Out of interest, what for?
10 members of staff came forward to put an official complaint in about her slagging the company off to all and sundry and putting a downer on everything.She was also heard calling management homophobic remarks.This was backed up by contractors we had on site doing some work that came and had a quite word in my ear that X was saying this and that about the company.
We asked another 15 staff if they had heard X saying anything and they all said the same......Im sure if we asked the remaining staff they would have said yes.
She had been there years and probably thought she could say and do what she wanted to not only the other staff but us the new owners....she was wrong and nothing but a bully.
 
I think you need to read mine again. They wouldn't get union protection. I'll give you a clue, the unions are known as TRADE unions. I can't imagine other workers who were part of the required trade taking action to keep workers who were not of that trade and weren't supposed to be there.

Just before I go, the union I suspect they would join is The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transprt Union. Not exactly a TRADE union, but an all encompassing union for those general sector workers, and everyone on the rig would be a member a union such as this, regardless of their trade. If everyone was in their own individual trade union, ie, sparks, mechies, tiffies, riggers, pipefitters, welders etc. you would need a multitude of union reps to service each trade! I guess this is the case, but I know nowt about unions me!
 
Just before I go, the union I suspect they would join is The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transprt Union. Not exactly a TRADE union, but an all encompassing union for those general sector workers, and everyone on the rig would be a member a union such as this, regardless of their trade. If everyone was in their own individual trade union, ie, sparks, mechies, tiffies, riggers, pipefitters, welders etc. you would need a multitude of union reps to service each trade! I guess this is the case, but I know nowt about unions me!

Well it used to be the case, but a lot have amalgamated. I still stand by my point that a union would not stand up for workers unqualified for a position. If they were going as unskilled labour, then yes, but not when they are basically being fraudulent which could also compromise safety.
 
I guess we'll agree to disagree, which was always going to be the outcome. I'm signing off now for 6 weeks or so, enjoying hols abroad, which I can only afford by having been really badly exploited ;)
And I will enjoy my retirement abroad which I am happy to say i can afford by not having been exploited at all. Enjoy your hols.
 
Last edited:
Well it used to be the case, but a lot have amalgamated. I still stand by my point that a union would not stand up for workers unqualified for a position. If they were going as unskilled labour, then yes, but not when they are basically being fraudulent which could also compromise safety.
The union I was a rep for was Amicus (now Unite I think) but you're right of course about the qualifications, nobody would have supported that scenario. We represented everybody, regardless of trade that was an employee of the parent company.
 
If you're a trouble making wanker then aye.
If you go to work to work and don't cause trouble then no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top