Getting a Trade Union in....

[rossie mad]

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

[Bogball XV]

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.

[muppet]

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.

[under the bar]

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.

[rrhf]

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. 

[muppet]

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.

[Tony Baloney]

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!

[under the bar]

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!

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.

[muppet]

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.

[pintsofguinness]

Rossie mad

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 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

What 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

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.

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.