Boycie Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I've got a question, If the union fights for a rule in favour of members, and it benefits them, do none union members not get the same deal because they're not paying the union? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Same deal for all, otherwise it would be seen as discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Same deal for all, otherwise it would be seen as discrimination.well, if you're not a member you can't ask them to fight the discrimination case for you. Seriously though, Unions are good for unfair dismissal. The governments have changed the employment tribunal laws, you have to go to ACAS now I think. Not as easy I'm told. Good for employers mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 well, if you're not a member you can't ask them to fight the discrimination case for you. Seriously though, Unions are good for unfair dismissal. The governments have changed the employment tribunal laws, you have to go to ACAS now I think. Not as easy I'm told. Good for employers mind. They removed financial hell for those fighting it individually too - but Unions still do it on no win no fee type basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 It's hell alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Unions do no win no fee? So if you win they charge you from your compo? Bloody hell, what's your subs for!? Unions out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Unions do no win no fee? So if you win they charge you from your compo? Bloody hell, what's your subs for!? Unions out! I think some do it that way. But if they win they get paid by the company's (who have to pay the legal fees) and you keep all the compo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 It costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 My wife is supposed to be striking next week, with Unison but I don't like it at all and think that strikes while the tories are in power are counter-productive, as they'll only try to reduce union power in return. Of course I want my wife to get a decent pay rise, for selfish reasons but I also know it won't happen until there is a Labour government. I'm not a Labour supporter, by the way. I just know that The Tories will never increase public sector pay more than private sector, so I really don't see the point of this strike at all, other than an opportunity for the unions to have a bit of sabre rattling. Public sector pay has been frozen or increases have been very low for several years now. So what. So has my private sector pay. The only difference is that I don't have as much job security or fantastic pension provision, I get no overtime or time off in lieu for the 10 extra hours a week I work on average, 25 instead of 32 days annual leave plus their 10 days annual "family leave". I get so sick of public sector workers bleating on about how hard they have it. It may sound like it but I'm not complaining about my lot - and bloody hell neither should they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I cannot blame the unions for calling a strike, when you see Nurses, Firefighters and Teachers have to do more with less resources and have pay rises that are at best 1%. Yet MP's, Energy Companies, Financial Institutions and Insurance companies just rip off the working population year in year out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 But everyone has been doing more with less resources. It's not just a public sector problem. All companies I am in contact with have had to make cut backs or lay off staff if they can't do so. Often both. I just don't see what makes the unions think that the public sector workers are somehow more deserving than everyone else, who already have the same pressures but less reward. I don't know what bringing the banks into the argument is supposed to do. Are you saying that because they haven't played by the rules in the past, none of us should?. Not really a solution is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 But everyone has been doing more with less resources. It's not just a public sector problem. All companies I am in contact with have had to make cut backs or lay off staff if they can't do so. Often both. I just don't see what makes the unions think that the public sector workers are somehow more deserving than everyone else, who already have the same pressures but less reward. I don't know what bringing the banks into the argument is supposed to do. Are you saying that because they haven't played by the rules in the past, none of us should?. Not really a solution is it. In the NHS the cut backs are to front line staff, not just saving office paper and turning off lights. Most companies could probably cope with losing an employee or 2 and the business would carry on. However a Children's Emergency department goes from 3 nurses and 2 doctors covering it on a night shift to 2 nurses and 1 doctor and a parent is being told that their child's injury will have to wait, even though its in severe pain, because they have just had an RTI in and 2 kids had to be cut out of a car and their parents are in critical condition next door. Justify your comparison now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Blimey, you don't hang about, going straight for the nuclear option & bringing NHS & kids into the equation. There will always be times when there aren't sufficient staff. I'm not an expert on NHS practices but I would assume that extra resources would be on call or brought in from other departments or patients moved to other hospitals. What's your solution then?. Pay for 3 nurses and 2 doctors, even though they're not needed for 90% of the time?. What if a bus of children crashes and you need 10 nurses and 5 doctors for this maybe once in 20 year event?. Do you employ 10 nurses and 5 doctors all the time just in case?. While we're at it, I'm sure we could cut violent crime if we double the amount of police on the streets. Are you happy to pay 50% income tax and VAT to pay for it all?. It's thinking like that which got us into the mess we're in. The money tree is dead. We've got to live within our means. Having said that, I do think that we should scrap HS2 and re-distribute some of that cash elsewhere until we can pay our way again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I agree with HS2, it will be out of date before they finish it. Funds in the NHS for ER departments have been cut and/or staff leaving have not been replaced. Whilst admissions through those departments has increased dramatically in the last 4 years, just in east midlands it has increased at a rate of 12%+ every year. Also critical care units are being targeted, they tried to close the specialist heart unit at Leicester, meaning that and one living in the east either had to go to Essex, Birmingham or Newcastle. Not so bad if you live in Derby and you get Birmingham, bit of a shocker if you live in Spalding. The answer is simple, we all pay more tax and remove middle management that just shuffle paper (ie Civil servants), works wonderfully well in the Scandinavian states, after all you get what you pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I'm all for cutting paper shufflers but I think I pay enough tax as it is thanks very much. There does need to be a proper debate about the future of the NHS, though, and I don't know what should happen, to be honest. Everyone living longer might be good on the face of it but it doesn't half bugger up the economy. A further thought on HS2: They should use the money to invest in nuclear and tidal power generation instead. Invest in British technology. It's absolutely shameful that our energy choice in the next 20 years is going to be: 1. Buy more gas from Russia, because what could possibly go wrong? 2. Use Chinese money to pay French companies to build our next power stations, as is happening with Hinckley point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Its the upper management who should go. Talking shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLACML Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Get rid of the NHS. There's your answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I'll be working as normal, my union hasn't asked me to down me tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Get rid of the NHS. There's your answer You are David Cameron and I claim my fiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brammie Steve Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Quote from Hilary Clinton this morning. "We have a special relationship with Britain whether the Conservatives or the Tories are in power!" So that's OK then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.