This makes me angry. Luckily it is so boring that nobody else will read it.
If anyone has worked for an employer, been singled-out for say taking maternity leave, having a face that doesn't fit, raising suggestions or any of the hundreds of reasons why the employers HR and legal teams could make life difficult, then they'll need a first class HR and legal team at the union to fight back.
None such exists at the T&G which has a very few officials and conditional fee lawyers sometimes provided as though as a favour at the last possible minute. Maybe the official quoted has something to do with the poor service. The service is so bad and so different from the one advertised that unions are occasionally sued. Unfortunately, those who have been let down are usually too tired and busy and under-insured to take the cases on.
The reason why a bore who talks about meaningless words can think he has a role in the union movement is that the voting system is rotten to the core, allowing several political hobbyists to call themselves a branch, elect themselves in a dingy office and claim to represent a thousand members, several employer's shops, and of course the branch bank account. The scandle of political bores infultrating a service organisation is one that should be illegal and I hope soon will be.
On a personal note, readers might be interested to know what happens when a hobbyist who likes passing motions and quoting solidarity actually meets a disgrunted member who has been bullied out of work and is them let down by their union, for example in failing to provide HR advice or failing to provide a good lawyer. The face of the activist goes rather blank. The activist comes-up with a plattidude, said in a rather slow deliberate way like the old headmasters who used to say "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you". The plattitude is usually "the union movement is about solidarity", which is obvious nonsense because it's a paid-for service advertised as offering help at work.
I hope people like you sleep well at night and I hope I never meet you.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Kevin Leetion
Re:How can we best build a vibrant, growing trade union movement? - 18/07/2007 21:59I'm afraid I can't see what you're so abgry about. At no point does the article argue against your perfectly reasonable point that union members deserve first class representation. Naturally, there are personal cases where the only solution is the legal one, and we should be able to deliver on that.
However, I must disagree with you that unions are wholly 'service organisations'- we are 'members' after all and not 'customers'. The article instead gets to grips with where our strength actually comes from- ie its size and strength of membership rather than ace negotiators and lawyers (although they obviously have a role to play). Even with the best representation in the world it will always be harder to deliver real improvements to terms and conditions in an area with 10% membership compared to one with 95%. We achieve more together than we do as individuals, and the more of us then the stronger our bargaining position (I've heard that come from the lips of the head of HR at my last work!)
I don't know the author so cannot comment on his background or motivation. However, I do agree that there are problem branches that are weak, detached, and unrepresentative. Again, the article offers pointers to improve the situation- by encouraging members to talk about their union and to take a lead in their local issues they are encouraged to take an interest in their representatives, hold them to account, and even stand for office themselves.
Your final paragraph is rather unfair- no-one is suggesting that at all. The thrust of the article is about how to get members engaging in the union and its democracy- I can't see why this is a bad thing. You may not like his use of the word 'solidarity', and I would agree with you if he used it as an abstract concept. However, I feel that the article puts it in a very practical context- we need more members and more activists- not to cover up for a poor service, but to strengthen us so that management really takes note.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
John Robertson
Re:How can we best build a vibrant, growing trade - 21/07/2007 16:42Well I've re-read the artical as carefully as I can.
I think that many union bosses and activists are suggesting poor service as a fact of life, and with bad paid-for services, the voluntary side of union life will become demoralised too.
The quotes in my last long paragraph are real quotes from real people. I could give you their names. If you are a T&G rep asking an official for legal help for a member, or a member complaining to branch activists, the answer really is "the purpose of a trade union is not legal insurance but solidarity". And T&G boss Mr Dwomy really did say "officers spend too much time acting as convenors because workplace organisation is not strong enough to sort out the bulk of its problems". I think that workplace organisation is not strong enough because there are so few paid officials.
I do take the point that free goodwill, slightly trained and organised around shops and reps, is the best thing about the union movement, but membership costs a hefty £12 a month, which is for something else. If officials, lawyers, secretaries & trainers are not paid for, then anyone who joins as a rep will soon resign again when they realise how little they are backed-up. My impression from anti-bullying groups, from the union reps message board, and from the firm I used to work for, is that reps' biggest resentment is the lack of backup when they need it. My own rep stood down at lack of legal help. His replacement finally got a referral to a lawyer who did more harm than good. When I was trying to prepare a legal case, and finally got to see the official to ask his advice, he said "yes, that's my job, but I'm too busy. I only read two or three pages at a time". Another pattern is for the union to delay legal help until the very last minute - after the member has done the legal work - and then to hope for a quick settlement. Dissatisfaction with union lawyers is recorded in a large survey of tribunal complainants.
Finally, and sadly, I believe that skinflint service is the rule not the exception. This is not a problem of a few bad apples or apathetic branches. For example the T&G spends only about 5% of its legal budget on employment law. There is very little money to be made from employment law in success fees. There may be millions of members who are led to believe they get "top lawyers" from the T&G web site. But they will only discover bad service when they try to get it, and meanwhile the £12 a month direct debits keep coming in.
I do agree with most of your points. The only disgreement is just how bad the average paid-for union service is. Close this window
Post edited by: Mortlake, at: 21/07/2007 16:46
The administrator has disabled public write access.
