Are you in a trade union?

seamus

Right, only posting this cos a couple of weeks back I was listening to the rahdeeo and one of the union muppets (Jack O'Connor from SIPTU I think) made some claim that 95% of people who aren't part of a union, want to be in a union, according to their survey.

Frankly I think this is complete and utter bull****. Most people I know aren't in any kind of union and consider them to be nothing but apologists for the lazy, ignorant and selfish workers, run by an old boy's club of leeches.

So I'd like to know the boardsies union "status". For the purposes of the poll, I'm not included artists' unions (such as Equity) which represent individuals/organsations not protected by normal employment law.

AnonoBoy

They're ain't no Union for pervert freaks so I'm out of luck completely.

EdgarAllenPoo

Trade unions are really only any use if you have a state or semi state job were you can bring the country to a standstill or make politicians looks bad by inaction otherwise they're bugger all use.

If your employer treats you badly sort it out yourself and if that doesn't work go the legal route there's plenty of safety to be found in employment related legislation and going to the courts.

El Siglo

Unions aye? Well we need an advertising campaign to inform people of the dangers of these unions before it's too late!

Mossy Monk

Not in one and don't particularly want to be in one either.

Professey Chin

AnonoBoy wrote: »

They're ain't no Union for pervert freaks so I'm out of luck completely.

NAMBLA?

Wazdakka

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

NAMBLA?

Marlon Brando wasn't that sick...


Although he was supermans dad...

Nodin

seamus wrote: »

Frankly I think this is complete and utter bull****. Most people I know aren't in any kind of union and consider them to be nothing but apologists for the lazy, ignorant and selfish workers, run by an old boy's club of leeches.
.

Doesn't say much for most of the people you know. Having worked in the private sector in non-union jobs for 20 years now, I can safely say that they're vital.

Nodin

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

NAMBLA?

No, NAMA.....

markpb

seamus wrote: »

Right, only posting this cos a couple of weeks back I was listening to the rahdeeo and one of the union muppets (Jack O'Connor from SIPTU I think) made some claim that 95% of people who aren't part of a union, want to be in a union, according to their survey.

I'm not in a union (which is common for people in IT I guess) because a) there is no union that I know of and b) the company have always treated me fairly. My pay rises and bonuses are based on my own performance which I think is perfectly fair. When there were redundancies earlier in the year, they were up front about it, offered a decent(-ish) ex gratia payment and even gave it to people who had been there less than two years and weren't entitled to anything. I can't see any improvement a union would bring to me/my company?

seamus

Nodin wrote: »

Doesn't say much for most of the people you know. Having worked in the private sector in non-union jobs for 20 years now, I can safely say that they're vital.

Having been working for 10 years, I can safely say that the worst places I've worked in were union-strong and the union spent too much time getting in the way. By comparison, those without unions had a better atmosphere and more efficient processes - and as markpb points out, when the time came for redundancies and pay cuts, they were upfront and fair about it

Eoin

I was in one in my last company, which is probably unusual for someone in IT. They weren't a particularly militant union, which was good - but the active members tended to be... I don't want to say "lazy" at their actual job (not their union activities), but they would do the bare minimum and any suggestion of change was met by an intake of breath through the teeth and a slow shaking of the head.

I didn't have to join, but it was just after the dotcom crash and web developers were quite prone to being let go, so I joined just in case. That, and I got cheap car insurance.

markpb

Nodin wrote: »

Doesn't say much for most of the people you know. Having worked in the private sector in non-union jobs for 20 years now, I can safely say that they're vital.

Why? Can you give us an example of a time when a union was (or would have been) useful in *your* company?

Nodin

markpb wrote: »

Why? Can you give us an example of a time when a union was (or would have been) useful in *your* company?

Could have arranged a decent redundancy for long term staff that were dropped when a regional office was shut. Could have ensured fair procedure in internal promotions. Could have set down a clear transparent graded pay structure based on performance. Could have prevented numerous cases of work place bullying and thus cut staff turnover.

spillcoe

I can see why historically Unions have been useful and they have certainly been great for workers but as far as I'm concerned at the moment they are a blight on Irish society and are one of the main reasons that the country has become so uncompetitive over the past few years. Any time you hear Unions reps on the radio being interviewed they come across as completely unreasonable and uncompromising. Heard a guy from one of the public service unions on the radio last week, any statistics that showed public sector workers in a bad light were according to him completely wrong and conveniently the only set of correct statistics was the ones they had compiled themselves.

While I'm not in one myself, there are a few of my friends who are and in general they seem to have very little interest in their unions activities but just tend to vote whatever way the reps tell them to.

markpb

Nodin wrote: »

Could have set down a clear transparent graded pay structure based on performance.

I can't argue with your other points, they could be perfectly valid. In my (limited) experience, unions do not argue for pay structures or promotions based on performance. In fact, the opposite is true - both are usually based on seniority which is a daft way of doing it.

Eoin

Nodin wrote: »

Could have arranged a decent redundancy for long term staff that were dropped when a regional office was shut. Could have ensured fair procedure in internal promotions. Could have set down a clear transparent graded pay structure based on performance. Could have prevented numerous cases of work place bullying and thus cut staff turnover.

My experience was that the union influence rewarded people who were in the company longer, rather than people who should have been promoted or received pay increases on merit.

godtabh

markpb wrote: »

I'm not in a union (which is common for people in IT I guess) because a) there is no union that I know of and b) the company have always treated me fairly. My pay rises and bonuses are based on my own performance which I think is perfectly fair. When there were redundancies earlier in the year, they were up front about it, offered a decent(-ish) ex gratia payment and even gave it to people who had been there less than two years and weren't entitled to anything. I can't see any improvement a union would bring to me/my company?

I think most professionals s would fit into this. I know that’s how it is where I work

Nodin wrote: »

Could have arranged a decent redundancy for long term staff that were dropped when a regional office was shut. Could have ensured fair procedure in internal promotions. Could have set down a clear transparent graded pay structure based on performance. Could have prevented numerous cases of work place bullying and thus cut staff turnover.

That’s the way it works in my place and we don’t need or ever had a union.

Problem with unions is that everyone gets the same regardless if you are good bad or indifferent about your job.

I recently had the "pleasure" of working for a semi-state company recently. Very view of them would last 5 mins where I work and wouldn’t be close the salary they were on there (some of the figures made me cry!).

Nodin

markpb wrote: »

I can't argue with your other points, they could be perfectly valid. In my (limited) experience, unions do not argue for pay structures or promotions based on performance. In fact, the opposite is true - both are usually based on seniority which is a daft way of doing it.

eoin wrote:

My experience was that the union influence rewarded people who were in the company longer, rather than people who should have been promoted or received pay increases on merit..

It's a complaint I've heard before. However, that would actually be an improvement on what I've seen over the years (and thats thinking of a few here that would be better off because of it, despite a complete absence of merit on their part). Theres just far too much nepotism and favouritism, and no way to control it. Whilst I accept that not every company needs a union, I'd rather be safe than sorry meself.

markpb

Nodin wrote: »

I'd rather be safe than sorry meself.

On the other hand, what if the other negative things that unions are famous for make the company uncompetitive and more employees need to be made redundant to rectify it?

dr.bollocko

Trade unionists will surely kill us all.

Cookie_Monster

Not any more thankfully, wasters.

Last time they got us a pay increase of about 2.2% they increased the weekly union fees by over 4%. Robbin bastards!

seamus

Nodin, most of the things you list as downsides of having no trade union:

• Unfair promotion procedures
• Unclear pay structures based on seniority
• Workplace bullying
• Nepotism/Favouritism

Are things which I found to be the mainstay of union-run shops. If you don't join the union, you get bullied and derided by your colleagues, passed over for perks/promotions, and by and large what you get paid depends on how long you've been there and how friendly you are with everyone.

"Decent redundancy" is a sticking point, not for this thread. Everyone's definition of that would vary. I would consider the statutory minimum to be adequate for most people.

Aidric

I am not personally, I have two friends who are. To me Union officials reek of greed, naiveity and blinkered vision. They are frequently unwilling to look at the overall picture, instead looking for short term gain.
I express no desire to ever join this band of cretins.

Nodin

markpb wrote: »

On the other hand, what if the other negative things that unions are famous for make the company uncompetitive and more employees need to be made redundant to rectify it?

That's an "if". Having tried one way, I'd like to chance the other. People usually leave rather than try and change things, however.

Kinetic^

I'd rather cut the skin off my balls and cover them in salt then join a union.

matrim

I'm not in one and don't have much interest in being in one. I can see the merits for some people \ jobs but I've never needed one and the one time I was in one the way they treated people (even people in the Union) was disgraceful.

An example was I was working in retail for a large supermarket chain. There was a strike to happen for something to do with conditions for staff that had been there for years (over 10), which had no effect on me or anyone else on my shift. At the time I was working nights (8pm - 4am when the shop was closed). The strike was due to happen on a Friday, and because our shift cut into the Friday the union wanted us to work 8 - 12 on Thursday and then 12 - 4 on Saturday. The way we saw it was that our Thursday shift was 8 - 4 and our Friday shift was 8 - 4. When we said we were working 8 - 4 on Thursday and would take the 8 - 4 on Friday for our strike time (with support from the majority of staff in the shop including management who were also involved in the strike) the union representative started to threaten us (both physically and with being dismissed from the union). They then put our picket times at 9 or 10am on Friday which meant it was too early for us to go and we missed out on our sub from the union from not working that day. When we asked to change it they told us to f**k off.

Tactics like that just put me right off the union's. And this was one of the largest unions in Ireland doing this.

Eoin

seamus wrote: »

"Decent redundancy" is a sticking point, not for this thread. Everyone's definition of that would vary. I would consider the statutory minimum to be adequate for most people.

OK, it's not for this thread, but I completely disagree with that given that a) I am not in my company 2 years yet, and b) even if I was there for 2 years and a day I would only get 5 weeks pay (if even). That wouldn't go far at the moment.

Anyhow - apart from the crony-ism and disproportionate value given to length of service, it's the fundamental resistance to change that annoys me. Everyone needs to adapt to changing conditions that aren't always in the control of "the man" running the place.

Nodin

eoin wrote: »

OK, it's not for this thread, but I completely disagree with that given that a) I am not in my company 2 years yet, and b) even if I was there for 2 years and a day I would only get 5 weeks pay (if even). That wouldn't go far at the moment..

It doesn't cover the quality of service or loyalty either. Plus theres always context. I believe a number of long term Irish workers were let go a few weeks back due to 'cut backs' (on the surface reasonable enough), yet the one in charge of these was in fact awarded some millions (STG) as a bonus earlier in the year. Thomas Cook, I think it was.

eoin wrote: »

Anyhow - apart from the crony-ism and disproportionate value given to length of service, it's the fundamental resistance to change that annoys me. Everyone needs to adapt to changing conditions that aren't always in the control of "the man" running the place.

There is often that, and its something that should be addressed.

maggy_thatcher

For this option:
"Yes, but I don't want to be (my employer makes me)"

If you can't fire someone for joining a union, surely they can't fire you for not joining one?? That strikes me as completely unreasonable.

seamus

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

If you can't fire someone for joining a union, surely they can't fire you for not joining one?? That strikes me as completely unreasonable.

Some employers make union membership a mandatory part of your contract of employment. If you don't join, then you're not accepting the job. If you leave, you're cancelling your employment contract and quitting.