Forums Forums Wirral Information Jobs - Training Wages in Engineering on Wirral

I have mixed feelings on unions. Whilst I agree with you that the workforce in many large organisations do need collective bargining, advice, protection and many other of the services that the unions offer; it is a well known fact that British industry has suffered at the hands of them.

It's not easy to find the balance between protection and miltancy. There have been several examples of unions providing too much protection, this has caused the employing organisations to suffer as they can't remain competitive. This can ultimately lead to a loss of customers and ultimately bankrupcy (as with the UK car industry in the 70's).

Personally I've viewed union membership as a sort of insurance, for me it would cost over £20 per month and I just don't see £20 a month's worth of benefits from the fee. Should I have a matter that I can't resolve with my employer, then I'd pay for my own legal advice. The situation is differnet for my girlfriend as the union does offer several benefits that are well worthwhile for the teaching profession.

It is quite easy to justify the membership fee, what would be your salary and terms of conditions at work if Unions did not exist.

Everybody looks at gains in return for their Union membership, what you also have to look at is potential losses for no-Unions, these can be far greater than any potential gains!

Many of the national organisations have upped the games they play with Unions, it costs a lot of money for the Unions to play these games, but it is a small investment for the company to weaken the Unions by reducing the number of members.

Added to this was a big campaign to make Unions a dirty word, this was Government and Business led, again a small investment by them to get their own way.

Classic examples of this are many of the smaller high street chains, where there is almost zero membership of Unions, the staff are treated exceedingly badly (bullying by managers, health and safety totally ignored, inadequate training, blame culture etc etc) and are on minimum wage. The staff moan loads, but still won't join Unions.

There is one major employer on the Wirral who is gradually reducing the hours people work, despite a massive backlog of work in many departments. When posts are becoming vacant, the new job is advertised with one day a week less hours. whilst this may be achievable for the odd post here and there, as a bulk strategy it is doomed to failure, increased stress and a never-ending spiral of destruction. At the same time, managers have less responsibility and more pay.

I am not as left wing as some of my posts may suggest, but when the right wing has the upper hand and abusing their power, the moderates have to swing to the left to compensate.

I believe that a person should have the choice of union membership; "closed shop" is outdated. The comment I make is only my personal opinion, that I "myself" choose not to be a member because I personally don't see the benefits it offers to me.

There a number of reasons why I am not a member and these include, my position in the organisation I work for, the influence I have and the job I do. There are many people that work with and for me that feel different and I respect that, in that it is their choice to be a member or not.

Remember one time, the mis 70's, when I couldn't get a job unless I was in the Union. I couldn't join the Union unless I had a job. Snookered.
I've seen Unions do good stuff and I've seen Unions do shoit stuff. I just regret the fact that Birkenhead now has no dockers, hardly any light industry, next to no heavy industry and lots of people looking for gainful employment. I blame the Unions to a great extent. All the Militant Tendency, Socialist Workers Party and all that crap got a grip of them and we now reaping that muddled thinking. Commons Sense should be the order of the day, from Unions and from bosses. In 50 years working, in the Military with no Unions and as a civvy with Unions, I found most bosses reasonable and all Unions hard to please, just my experience of it all. Examples I could provide by the armful.

If anyone has any doubt about the importance the trade union movement has played, in conditions of employment and life in general we enjoy, a simple bit of historical research is all that's required. Of all the benefits that are enjoyed today by the workers of this country, H&S, paid holidays,sick leave,etc, etc and i could go on and on, all the benefits have been hard won by unions and the workers of this country sticking together, none of these benefits have been handed to anyone on a plate. More often than not big business and bosses have in fact opposed more changes to pay and workers conditions. As DD said in a earlier post, without strong union representation these conditions are being eroded by certain employers because of lack of union protection. In my view human nature hasn't changed that much and the quickest way to return the the poor standards of employment of the early 1900s is to do away with union representation.

I see it from both sides as I have permanent members of staff and contractors that work for me. The permanent staff are heavily protected by their contracts of employment, service, unions and employment rights; whilst the contractors I could pretty much finish up tomorrow if the need arised.

The contractors get paid more per hour, but get no sick pay, annual leave, pension, protection or anything else that comes with being employed directly. Whilst their hourly rate is higher, in effect their costs are similar to the organisation as there is no liability/pension/leave pay to cover with contracting staff.


But why contract if that's the case? I suppose the people that do have faith in their skills and ability to find other work and that they are prepared to move about to where the work is. It was a term that Herbert Hoover called "rugged individualism". This way of work isn't for everyone though and it will depend a lot on the sector that you work in and the lifestyle that you lead.

Many many examples floating around of what appeared (by poor media reporting) to be militant unions asking for pay rise much greater than inflation -

Companies whose workers are reported of having things like 10% pay rises and still going on strike - the truth being that it was 10% over 5 years (1.9% per year), the pay rise was significantly under inflation plus the lock-in for 5 years when inflation was expected to rise.

Pay rises of 5% - the truth, it was a staged pay rise which gave an in-year pay rise of less than inflation.

6% pay rise - the truth, it should have been backdated 2 years but wasn't (breaking an earlier promise) giving an effective less than inflation pay rise.

A worker sacked for having nookie in a cupboard at work - the truth being that the manager who also got caught wasn't sacked.

Workers being told they can't have pay rises - the truth managers/shareholders got over double inflation.

It is very easy for the media to make the Unions look bad with sensationalist reporting.

All the above cases (figures are approximate from memory) were fought by the Unions and strike action brought as a last ditch resort. Do you really think workers like getting no pay and bad press, strikes are things that nobody takes lightly, it creates enormous hardship.

Can you imagine how the Cammel Laird workers lived with no income throughout the strike periods - how long can you live without pay? Do you think they wanted to live like that?

Too many others are apathetic and/or believe the headlines.

I challenge anyone to give me a valid reason not to join a Union unless they are plain masochistic or effectively self-employed.

Full marks to members of Unions, they are subsidising the non-members.

Of course DD there has always been bias reporting in this country against unions and the sad thing is people believe it.
I was in fact one of those Cammel laird workers who lost many, many weeks and sometimes months of pay, and do you know something, according to the press it was always the union fault, never the management fault ever. So your right it wasn't easy being without wages and the decision to take strike action wasn't taken lightly, but I'm sure there are people who think that when you are on strike you still receive your full wage.
I can also recall as a Union representative going to meetings the length and breadth of this country to meet MPs and also going to Parliament to meet MPs to try and get work for the yard, not only would it have benefited the workers but the management and directors if successful, how were we repaid, by stopping our wages. Anyway, as we all know now, there was a bigger plan to be hatched.

The press will always want to write stories because it sells newspapers, but the employers get their fair share of publicity. I see Wirral Council mentioned far more in our local papers than Unison (its majority membership). It's not just the belief of the press that think that unions damaged industry in the 70s & 80s.

My experiences of unions don't come from papers, but from working directly with them and watching their activities in the workplace for many years. The examples that stick in my mind are directly concerned with how they've represented their members.

Union reps not interested in working with their members if it concerns their own promotional prospects, attempting some senseless arguement just because someone was unsuccessful at interview, very bad behavoir on picket lines, examples too many to mention. Locally, I haven't seen them have much success at anything becuase large organisations will always tend to be relatively fair, follow process and operate within the law.

Nevertheless, I'm freinds with very many union reps who tell me stories of good things that they've done for their members, but isn't that what opionion is? Some people are for, some against.

Going back to Nigel's question regarding wages, well that's another interesting one....In the small business sector I could quite simply ask my boss for more money. Work in somewhere larger then "you've reached the top of your pay grade, there are no more spinal points to progress".

One thing that suprises a lot of people is the openess of grading knowledge in the civil service. Everybody knows what pay grade everyone else is on, it is completely different in many private sector organisations where you may have no idea of the grade/salary of your colleagues.

I personally believe that the easiest way to get paid more money is to look for another job on a higher salary.

Sorry Neil, I have yet to find a large organisation that doesn't openly break the law. I would name a few apart from the obvious slander etc. I mentioned one case earlier on where working hours are arbitrarily being cut despite backlogs without any proper assessment of the requirements. I know of cases where no training has been given despite the hazardous nature of the work. I have seen some dreadful cases were COSHH has been ignored, dangerous chemicals in unmarked and sometimes unsuitable containers etc.

Only in the last week a company that deals with Lithium on the Wirral has been successfully prosecuted.

ICI at Runcorn has an appalling Health and Safety record, with numerous fines, warnings etc.

The Civil Service has introduced a number of measures in the last ten years to make individuals pay less visible and predictable.

I realise not all companies are like that - but I find few that aren't. The more managers, the less management.

Money and jobs are short at the moment, its an employers market, they can take bigger risks without getting grassed up.

I really pity the current generation who have been indoctrinated in thinking that Unions are bad and will not invest in themselves. If you have problems with your Union it is a lot easier and safer to sort out than an employer. Yes you get rogue representatives in Unions, but generally certain layers of the Unions have a lot of good people.

In the last 20 years I have only come across one militant trade-unionist, but have come across 4 management *rs* lickers who were looking after their own promotion (which usually they never got), this is out of a total of about 60 representatives.

I don't appreciate the "like it or lump it" approach, how about just doing things properly and fairly.

Whilst I believe that campaigning for better pay and conditions is a good thing, total revenue - total cost = profit.

Locally we've seen a number of industries either go bankrupt (C. Laird) or move abroad (Bidston Steel, Champion). Don't get me wrong, I fully support health and safety policies with good working conditions, but all these things cost money.

Whilst I'm certain that unions did good things for their employees in Lairds and the like, there is now nothing more to protect; the industry is gone (I was tempted to say "the gates are shut", but thats not the case if you want home furnishings at champions business park!)

Why have these companies moved abroad? Because they are cheaper to operate over there. Wages don't cost as much, health and safety not as strict, taxes not as bad, government legislation not as strict, less paid leave etc. All this means less cost to the customer. Unions are powerless to stop the lost business, if a customer can get the product cheaper elsewhere they usually will. The consumer is king.

Governments have tried to implement legislation to protect industry (restricting imports of certain products etc), but the success of this is questionable. Consider Nissan's penetration into the UK market.

The u-turn on offshore telephone banking was an interesting one, customers pissed off that the person on the other end of the phone can speak english, but can't spell surnames. Banks brought the uk call centres back because it was loosing them customers.

I often thought the American market was more loyal to only "buy American", but consider GMC filing for chapter 11 last year due to its massive liability.

The mining strike was an interesting example at it became cheaper to import coal than to get it out of uk ground, but the CEGB was the largest customer. The government could have done more to help redeploy and train miners once the pits closed.

The worst example to me has been the recent behavior of the banks, lending people money with no means to pay it back. They then have to be bailed out to the tune of 20% of our GDP. I believe it's the fault of the government, not doing enough to regulate it.

There will always be a need to buy local, I can't have my red stripe shipped in from China every time I want a beer :-)

The Unions are too politicised, instead of fighting for workers rights they fight for ideological supremacy (Socialism/Communism), which has been found wanting. Getting involved in the Union is also now being found to be a good career, you can get to be an MP or you can get be a big wig in the Union itself, or, as has been previously noted, it can enhance you career in your job. Anything rather than actually work to improve your fellow workers lot. The old Unions were funded by Moscow as well and seem to have kept the old ideology going. It's all very well asking bosses to move with the times but the Unions have got to do the same or go the way of the dinosaurs.

Could someone actually say that their union fee is being spent wisely? Political donations, paying to send reps to conferences, member's expenses etc etc.

Will we need unions with the internet as advice, information, publicity and organising campaigns becomes easier to obtain? Take the recent protests on Facebook for example, there isn't a need anymore to pay someone to organise them.

For industry in this country to compete with other countries industries, they must be allowed to do so on an equal footing.
Two of the industries you previously mentioned, shipbuilding and mining were not allowed to do so. Proven fact that Mrs Thatcher had no inclination whatsoever to have these industries survive. She appointed 2 chairman with the mandate to close down shipbuilding and the mining industry. At that time ships were being made cheaper abroad, not quicker and certainly not better, the main manufacturer of ships at that time and in direct competition to British shipbuilders were Japan and Korea, Korea being the more competitive of the two. Fact was, the safety in their ship yards was non existent and conditions and pay very poor. On saying that the Korean and Japanese ship yards only had to tender on a material only basis, all other costs were picked up by the government. Similar with coal. Only Mrs Thatcher and her government at the time seen this situation as a way of breaking what she seen as powerful unions, but it wasn't powerful unions she wanted to see the back of, it was unionism full stop.

Rather then back these industries for the short term for the sake of future generations, she let them go to the wall with the propaganda and lies that, it was the British worker that was at fault and the mines were running dry of coal and couldn't be got out of the ground at a profit. How wrong she has been proven, there are mines operating today by workers cooperatives at a profit and they can't get the coal out of the ground quick enough to meet demand.

There may well be some truth in the fact that some goods can be brought in from abroad cheaper, but at what cost. I am certainly not happy receiving goods from abroad knowing what conditions the people of India, China, Korea etc, etc have to work in.

Problems with british shipbuilding pre-dated Margaret Thatcher by about 20 years (ship building recession of 1958). This was a contributing factor to the nationalisation of Lairds in 1977, two years before Thatcher came to power. World shipbuilding began to improve around 1961, but Britain stagnated.

The Thatcher government continued to pour money into British shipbuilding up until about the second term in 1983. Saying that they didn't help is untrue. A number of other stuggling industries including the motor (BLMC) were nationalised around a similar time to ship building.

Some mines were profitable and survied the pit closures, it was never the intention to shut these. It was the unions that resisted calls for the increased automation in mines because of fear of job cuts.

Automation has seen the loss of a number of jobs, but what are we expected to do, keep producing things with carving knives because it keeps people employed? I agree that one area that the government can help in is re-deployment and funding training.

There are a huge number of resons why businesses fail, but the majority will either be through lost sales or increased costs, but how long are we expected to fund decling industries through tax payer's money?

You may briefly think about the conditions that a worker has gone through to make your shoes, television or clothes, but I bet you'll still use and buy them, thus keeping these people in their bad conditions.