Do any of you have any experience on getting a trade union established in the workplace?
A friend works in a place where there's maybe 60 or so employees and for a number of reasons they're desperate to get something going as they're basically being shit on (more so than most employees in these times).
Apparently they're trying to arrange a meeting with some boy who can organise representation for them.
It's all top secret because this place has been known to single out individuals who would speak up and bully them/"discipline" them until they leave/are dismissed and there seems to be quite a fear that anyone caught organising something like this will go the same way.
Just wondered had any experience/offer any advice I could pass on, good idea? bad idea?
ffs if you get a union in they will do the same as they do everywhere else and bleed the company dry until it closes down
Quote from: tyronefan on April 01, 2009, 07:30:50 PM
ffs if you get a union in they will do the same as they do everywhere else and bleed the company dry until it closes down
Really if everything had closed down then there could be no unions left could there? Idiotic post.
POG you should identify which union would suit best and make discrete contact. They will advise from there. It's harder in the UK than here thanks to Mrs. Thatcher's 'Government'.
No doubt tyronefan is also thatcherfan.
how can they close down the civil service
Not a thatcher fan only a person who worked where unions operated and watched how they were run and who was running them and it wasn't all for the benefit of the lads who were working there.
bit idiotic to suggest anyone who opposes unions has to be a fan of thatcher
Quote from: tyronefan on April 01, 2009, 07:30:50 PM
ffs if you get a union in they will do the same as they do everywhere else and bleed the company dry until it closes down
Surely they wouldnt do what the workforce don't want?
From what I can gather money is well down the list on what they want to sort out. (Even though they've taken a 10% pay cut, havent had a pay rise in 3 years and are probably the lowest paid in their field).
Number 1 priority, from what I can gather, is to either stop the constant "disciplining" and warnings or to allow some representation. Most of these warnings come from staff being made to do things without adequate training and stuff they are not qualified for.
The company are responsible for giving a number of other companies work and have, in the past, blocked their members of staff from going to these other companies with threats that work will be withdrawn!
They have also consistently overlooked a number of people for promotion when they are more than qualified and the postions get handed to the less qualified - who happen to get on with the boss.
Bullying from managers is very common.
This is the best one - they've recently had a round of redundancies, and a fortnight later a job was given to the bosses sister :o
I know unions can go too far on occasions but I know this crowd are desperate for help.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 01, 2009, 07:45:07 PM
They have also consistently overlooked a number of people for promotion when they are more than qualified and the postions get handed to the less qualified - who happen to get on with the boss.
Pints, i'm assuming you're referring to a private company here? If so, is that not just one of the things you have to deal with? At the end of the day, if it's a private company, the boss can hire or promote whoever they want, regardless of qualifications or experience.
Quote from: tyronefan on April 01, 2009, 07:41:50 PM
how can they close down the civil service
Not a thatcher fan only a person who worked where unions operated and watched how they were run and who was running them and it wasn't all for the benefit of the lads who were working there.
bit idiotic to suggest anyone who opposes unions has to be a fan of thatcher
You said company. The civil service don't work for a company do they?
And because you saw a union operate in one company you conclude that 'everywhere' they bleed company's dry and shut them down. Idiotic.
PoG, I have some experience in these matters in my workplace. The company has a LEGAL obligation to recognise a union if a majority of employees (I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but any union official should be able to tell you) intimate that they wish to join. There seems to be a lot of bullying going on, which is against employment laws. Get the affected workers to individually note down EVERY instance of such bullying (date, time, what it consisted of etc) in order to build up a dossier with a view to instigating an action at the Industrial Tribunal ... they should also make it clear to those doing the bullying that they will put up with it no longer and if it continues will be consulting a solicitor ... the union (once organised) will have a legal department which will advise on the likelihood of success (the more comprehensive the dossier, the increased likelihood of success). The union will also finance any case at the tribunal. I and several colleagues had to go down this route a few years ago in a tribunal case that involved barristers ... it was fully funded by the union and we were successful in our case. The people overlooked for promotion and losing out to less qualified/experienced lickspittles also have a legal case via tribunal ...
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 01, 2009, 07:54:02 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 01, 2009, 07:45:07 PM
They have also consistently overlooked a number of people for promotion when they are more than qualified and the postions get handed to the less qualified - who happen to get on with the boss.
Pints, i'm assuming you're referring to a private company here? If so, is that not just one of the things you have to deal with? At the end of the day, if it's a private company, the boss can hire or promote whoever they want, regardless of qualifications or experience.
Not in Ireland. Not sure about the UK post Thatcher.
there is a labour court to deal with these problems in Ireland
Unions were successful in ruining many companies in the 70s and early 80s. Even when times are hard now they still make demand after unreasonable demand when a responsible representative would want to keep people in work. When I think of unions I think of Socialist Worker soap dodgers outside Queen's.
Having said that pints the threat of a unionised workforce might scare them into rectifying any issues. It worked in our place.
Quote from: red hander on April 01, 2009, 07:59:11 PM
PoG, I have some experience in these matters in my workplace. The company has a LEGAL obligation to recognise a union if a majority of employees (I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but any union official should be able to tell you) intimate that they wish to join. There seems to be a lot of bullying going on, which is against employment laws. Get the affected workers to individually note down EVERY instance of such bullying (date, time, what it consisted of etc) in order to build up a dossier with a view to instigating an action at the Industrial Tribunal ... they should also make it clear to those doing the bullying that they will put up with it no longer and if it continues will be consulting a solicitor ... the union (once organised) will have a legal department which will advise on the likelihood of success (the more comprehensive the dossier, the increased likelihood of success). The union will also finance any case at the tribunal. I and several colleagues had to go down this route a few years ago in a tribunal case that involved barristers ... it was fully funded by the union and we were successful in our case. The people overlooked for promotion and losing out to less qualified/experienced lickspittles also have a legal case via tribunal ...
Thanks!
From what I hear there are something like 7 or 8 people under a particular manager, each one of these have made a complaint to another manager about bullying and asked to be tranfered to another dept- they were told they should get together with the bully and sort it out themselves that there was nothing that could be done. Ha!
It's similar with these verbal and written warnings that are given out - two people make the same error (because they havent had adequate training), one gets a warning the other hears nothing about it.
What happens then if so many indicate they wish to join, does the union make contact with the employer to say they're going to start kicking ass or what?
What sort of protection is there for the employees willing to join, apparently one of the manager's ass lickers was saying the employer would start terminating contracts if a union was threatened but I'd find it hard to believe that was possible? Not that I think a lot of them care at this stage.
Btw I dont think any of them want any agro over the bullying, they just want it to stop.
Muppet
QuotePOG you should identify which union would suit best and make discrete contact. They will advise from there.
THey have done I think muppet, trying to arrange a meeting with someone.
you need to tell your friends that first they must find the union must suited to them.if its a private company in manufacturing i would recommend probably SIPTU however they should contact the ICTU first to see what union they would recommend.
There is no point all of this cloak and dagger stuff as well.there might be a great response to getting a union now but when the process of unionisng the workforce starts and only 20% join its a waste of time so you need at least 75% to join.
Ive seen before people having great notions for unions and then small threats been issued from the employer and the next thing the union has only 10% membership.
A public meeting should be called after work hours and a vote taken on joining a union and whoever is in favour puts their name to a register for membership of such union.
The union will recommend that shop stewards be appointed and a health and safety steward as well.
I would recommend people who are not afraid to speak up and believe in what there rights are.no point electing a person who is afraid to speak up.Basically people who can ruffle a few feathers ;)
In relation to the bullying this is a very serious offence in employment law.
A case should be brought to the righs commisioner and if the workers are part of a union at this stage then as stated before the union covers the cost.
Please recommend that the employees tell exact details and dont exaggerate the situation.time and again ive seen employees do this and the tribunal seeing through it.
People tend to forget that its the employer who usually exaggerates their role and that the tribunal usually tend to side with the employee once they establish their case is concrete.
Sledgehammer/nut maybe. It might be a bit like calling in the Sopranos to sort out your da because he gave you a hard time. The cure could be worse than the disease.
What is it they think a Union can do that they can't do already? Are the company breaking the law?
There is employers out there who think they can get away with anything they want when it comes to employing people.
a union brings employees together to stand up for what rights they have and stands up against such employers
Im not advocating all out strikes or work stoppages but employees need a voice against poor employment practise and too many people put their head in the sand when it comes to standing up for whats rightfully theirs in law
I'd normally agree with the many who feel that unions are generally self serving etc, but in this case the employers do appear to be doing an awful lot of f**king about and maybe a union representative would be useful here if only to galvinise the employees to stick up for their rights - but in general (due to the good work of unions back in the day) employment law should be enough to protect workers rights from such abuses.
Quote from: Gnevin on April 02, 2009, 10:36:54 AM
What is it they think a Union can do that they can't do already? Are the company breaking the law?
Certain companies happily break the law threatening to take the employee all the way to the Supreme Court if they have a problem with it. The employee normally will be advised that they will almost definately win the case but if they run into the wrong judge they might not get costs, in which case they would lose their homes.
Usually the employee will give up at that point. However a union would most likely pick up the tab for them.
In an ideal world there would be no need for unions. But responsible employers are not as prominent as everyone would like to think. Rogue employers mean there will always be a market for unions.
POG,
The staff should assert their rights under the ICE regulations (Information Consultation of Employees).
Providing there are more than 50 employees the staff have the right to form their own consultative group and be consulted on all management decisions and terms & conditions for staff including pay, hours of work, workplace rules, etc. Staff are absolutley protected from unfair treatment as a result of asserting that right. Management should quickly realise that if their decisions are open to the scrutiny of a staff forum that is protected under employment law, that those decisons need to be fair and equitable.
IMO and that of many other its preferable to mucking around with unions nearly all of whom peddle their own agenda and it's said care more about increasin membership than getting the best mutual deal betwen staf & mgt. It also means that staff members arent pressurised to joining one union over another and the payments that come with that.
I can send you some info on it if you PM me.
Pints I dont think its wise to advise any employee of rabble rousing at the moment. If this recession does any good, it will reassert the right of the employer to run his business as neccessary.
Quote from: rrhf on April 02, 2009, 01:09:12 PM
Pints I dont think its wise to advise any employee of rabble rousing at the moment. If this recession does any good, it will reassert the right of the employer to run his business as neccessary.
We had that up to Dickens. We have moved on.
Quote from: muppet on April 02, 2009, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on April 02, 2009, 10:36:54 AM
What is it they think a Union can do that they can't do already? Are the company breaking the law?
Certain companies happily break the law threatening to take the employee all the way to the Supreme Court if they have a problem with it. The employee normally will be advised that they will almost definately win the case but if they run into the wrong judge they might not get costs, in which case they would lose their homes.
Usually the employee will give up at that point. However a union would most likely pick up the tab for them.
In an ideal world there would be no need for unions. But responsible employers are not as prominent as everyone would like to think. Rogue employers mean there will always be a market for unions.
You could equally argue that unions would not be necessary if employees did the job they were paid to do. The law is firmly on the side of the employee and it is very difficult to get rid of someone useless!
QuoteYou could equally argue that unions would not be necessary if employees did the job they were paid to do. The law is firmly on the side of the employee and it is very difficult to get rid of someone useless!
Not if you capability/performance manage them out the door. Takes some time and close monmitoring of performance & meetings need to be documented in case they take a case against you. Most lazy/usless staff will opt to go elsewhere instead of having their lazy ways scrutinized and to avoid the stigma of being dismissed for being a poor performer.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 02, 2009, 01:40:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 02, 2009, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on April 02, 2009, 10:36:54 AM
What is it they think a Union can do that they can't do already? Are the company breaking the law?
Certain companies happily break the law threatening to take the employee all the way to the Supreme Court if they have a problem with it. The employee normally will be advised that they will almost definately win the case but if they run into the wrong judge they might not get costs, in which case they would lose their homes.
Usually the employee will give up at that point. However a union would most likely pick up the tab for them.
In an ideal world there would be no need for unions. But responsible employers are not as prominent as everyone would like to think. Rogue employers mean there will always be a market for unions.
You could equally argue that unions would not be necessary if employees did the job they were paid to do. The law is firmly on the side of the employee and it is very difficult to get rid of someone useless!
No problem to fire anyone in the States or the UK.
Not that difficult here if the employee is below par.
Granted in France and in particular Italy you have a point.
Rossie mad
Quoteyou need to tell your friends that first they must find the union must suited to them.if its a private company in manufacturing i would recommend probably SIPTU however they should contact the ICTU first to see what union they would recommend.
There is no point all of this cloak and dagger stuff as well.there might be a great response to getting a union now but when the process of unionisng the workforce starts and only 20% join its a waste of time so you need at least 75% to join.
Ive seen before people having great notions for unions and then small threats been issued from the employer and the next thing the union has only 10% membership.
A public meeting should be called after work hours and a vote taken on joining a union and whoever is in favour puts their name to a register for membership of such union.
The union will recommend that shop stewards be appointed and a health and safety steward as well.
I would recommend people who are not afraid to speak up and believe in what there rights are.no point electing a person who is afraid to speak up.Basically people who can ruffle a few feathers Wink
In relation to the bullying this is a very serious offence in employment law.
A case should be brought to the righs commisioner and if the workers are part of a union at this stage then as stated before the union covers the cost.
Please recommend that the employees tell exact details and dont exaggerate the situation.time and again ive seen employees do this and the tribunal seeing through it.
People tend to forget that its the employer who usually exaggerates their role and that the tribunal usually tend to side with the employee once they establish their case is concrete.
Thanks rossie, I think the cloak and dagger stuff is just for now as those trying to organise it are concerned if it falls through they will be targetted by the employers. As far as I know it has already been widely discussed in the biggest and strongest department of the company which has 30-40 people and there is almost 100% support - one or two have reservations. A union has been identified and although a meeting was planned they've agreed a meeting isnt necessary and their membership forms will be widely distributed in the place on Monday.
I know some people will be unusually excited about going to work Monday morning!
dont think there's any lack of people to speak out, likely shop stewards have already been identified.
With the bullying, as I said the impression I get is that they just want it to stop and aren't bothered about taking it further.
Gnevin
QuoteWhat is it they think a Union can do that they can't do already? Are the company breaking the law?
Yes.
They've been told by the union boys today that disciplining or handing out warnings for something that happened last July or august (which is widespread) is illegal. None of them knew that, I didnt know that. A union will know their rights and will provide a back bone and keep them united. Employment laws are great in a sense but useless when people don't know what their rights are, and without a union what can someone do even if they know the law is being broke, take them to a tribunal? How many would have the money to take on a company?
Under the Bar
QuoteProviding there are more than 50 employees the staff have the right to form their own consultative group and be consulted on all management decisions and terms & conditions for staff including pay, hours of work, workplace rules, etc. Staff are absolutley protected from unfair treatment as a result of asserting that right. Management should quickly realise that if their decisions are open to the scrutiny of a staff forum that is protected under employment law, that those decisons need to be fair and equitable.
IMO and that of many other its preferable to mucking around with unions nearly all of whom peddle their own agenda and it's said care more about increasin membership than getting the best mutual deal betwen staf & mgt. It also means that staff members arent pressurised to joining one union over another and the payments that come with that.
The problem with a consultative group UTB is that the staff in this place a generally very young - 90% are in their early to mid 20s. (That's no coincidence if you ask me - easier to bully). I know when they had redundancies they had a committe where members of staff would be consulted (I think they're required to do this?) - all concerns were raised, the committee were kicking off over a number of things but were ignored. I think they regularly hold these meetings and reviews and stuff where the staff kick off about everything that's happening, some manager writes it all down and there's not another word about it. It's all a talking shop.
Think the payment of this union is a tenner a month, my mate told me they'd pay 100 a month if something could be done.
If you can get me some info though I'll pass it on, would appreciate it.