If unions were on the side of the members, The we wouldn’t have the DCPC and we wouldn’t have the over regulated system that we have now.
They are in it for profit and nothing else.
Full of empty promises and ■■■■■■■■ from what i’m now seeing. “A fool wants something for nothing, so lets give him a nothing for something”. should be Unites catchphrase. Have spoken to so many drivers just recently who feel let down and cheated by this union.
From the lack of responses on this subject I think the majority are against unions and see them as problem makers rather than problem solvers? 
manic-merc:
From the lack of responses on this subject I think the majority are against unions and see them as problem makers rather than problem solvers?
There’s nothing wrong with unions and living standards and the economy would still be where they were in the 1930’s in real terms if it hadn’t have been for unions and union action since that time.The problem is the difference between strong unions,with a so called ‘militant’ membership,compared to weak unions,with a membership that is too weak and/or scared to get involved in,what no suprise the government and employers have indoctrinated recent generations into thinking is, ‘militancy’.In that regard it all depends on your definition of what the ‘problem’ is and the ‘solution’.
The fact is unions are only as good as the strength and unity of their rank and file membership and most of the ‘problems’ that exist for the working classes and the economy now are the result of that rank and file deciding to listen to the employers side of the arguments and their cronies in the CBI and the Tory government ( including the so called Labour government run by people like Blair ) unlike the so called militant days of the 1960’s/70’s.
The surprising thing is why the TUC and it’s leadership hasn’t just issued an ultimatum to the rank and file saying that the choice is either a return to those old so called ‘militant’ values,or shut down and call it a day in which case the employers just issue terms and conditions on a dictatorial take it or leave it basis.Which effectively is more or less where the unions are now with a few exceptions like the RMT etc.History shows that it’s the latter idea which is the ‘problem’ whereas it’s the former that has always been the ‘solution’.
The only reason as to why they don’t seem to have done so is to keep the large salaries and perks rolling in for the union leaders and executives who are still running what they know is effectively a spent force with a gutless demoralised rank and file at best or indoctrinated working class Tories at worst.
manic-merc:
‘…UNITE … seem to promise quite a bit for my monthly direct debit…’
UNITE keep quite about the significant portion of sub’s that goes directly to the Labour Party - but which can be subtracted from sub’s only upon requesting the appropriate form
manic-merc:
'…Is it worth joining a union…?
Yes, or the very true adage ‘divide & conquer’ places 100% of industrial power on the biased side of the EU/Government
manic-merc:
‘…Is it worth joining a union? And if it is which one…?’
The strongest in your workplace, which for me is sadly UNITE which sends out hypocritical & tribally infused Labour Party propaganda
But which can be mitigated by denying them the subscription (as above) 
Happy Keith:
manic-merc:
‘…UNITE … seem to promise quite a bit for my monthly direct debit…’UNITE keep quite about the significant portion of sub’s that goes directly to the Labour Party - but which can be subtracted from sub’s only upon requesting the appropriate form
manic-merc:
'…Is it worth joining a union…?Yes, or the very true adage ‘divide & conquer’ places 100% of industrial power on the biased side of the EU/Government
manic-merc:
‘…Is it worth joining a union? And if it is which one…?’The strongest in your workplace, which for me is sadly UNITE which sends out hypocritical & tribally infused Labour Party propaganda
But which can be mitigated by denying them the subscription (as above)
It all depends on your definition of ‘Labour Party’.The ‘propaganda’ is all about idealist socialist workers of the world unite bs.When what’s needed is a sharp turn to the so called right wing to the right of UKIP. 
Unite seem to want a return to the 70’s, Red Robbo, closed shops, work to rule and forcing the nation to bend to their will. They’ve runined so many sectors, first it was car transporters under T&GWU now doing their utmost with the petrol tankers.
Outdated and clueless from what I see. I can’t see what the benefit would be in being a member. I’ve seen posts claiming how the union have helped with a problem. We see a union guy show his face in our place normally when an idiot has put his job on the line for being an idiot and the union rep then trys to save his job!
He then trys to push the benefits of joining and when it was pointed out that the company he works for are making 25 redundant, blames it on poor management, priceless!
Carryfast:
‘…It all depends on your definition of ‘Labour Party’…’
What makes one imagine that anyone in the 21st century bothers ‘defining’ the hugely pro-EU & chancing bunch of spent and hypocritical has-beens currently masquerading as ‘Labour’ 
It’s 100% UNITE’s definition of ‘Labour Party’ which they undemocratically (and covertly?) bung millions of skint but well intentioned workers money to
I can’t be bothered with the deluded, silver-spoon, pending/already(?) millionaire Milliband or any of his band of ‘cant-give-it-away-fast-enough’ sycophantic & tribal trolls - hence my Union political ‘contribution’ gets deducted and stays with me 
Join a Union?
My thoughts on this.
Basically you have two choices, you either do or you don’t. Nobody can force you to and nobody can stop you joining a Union. What you need to do is think through the consequences of whichever decision you make.
By not joining a Union you will be allowing yourself to be manipulated by government’s and employers as is the case at present. This is due to the crippling “Anti-Union” legislation introduced to the “Statute Book” by a certain woman and her sociopathic destructive government. You will also be exposed to open condemnation by those who are Union members to accusations of being parasites. i.e sitting back and taking all the benefits hard fought for and gained by those who took on the governments and employers through hard times and suffering. This IMHO above all is what devides a workforce, any workforce.
By joining a Union you strengthen it, and the more members that join demonstrates to governments and employers that they have a united workforce who will most certainly become a threat to the status quo, but only if you stand strong together.
They don’t like this but why should you care? What have you got to lose that you didn’t before you joined? Your job? Financial security? Well take a look around you. They’re not safe anyway. Never have been until you do something about it. The more that join can only strengthen a workforces bargaining position and politicians know this especially those in government and they get edgy. You all hold the power to change things for the better, not just for yourselves, but for everyone. Never forget that the people, and only the people of a nation are its power and its strength.
Off my soap-box now. Crack on.
This is where the problem lies I think, someone elses politics are being forced upon you when you just want to be united as a workforce. Why should a political agenda be an issue when the workforce is trying to secure a decent meal allowance for example?
Maybe the way forward is for the workforce to organise themselves as a group without paying into some organisation that doesn’t really have your direct or immediate concerns at heart?
I’ve had a good look at this over the last few days right back to the beginning and the Tolpuddle martyrs etc, I wonder what they would have made of it now?
manic-merc:
This is where the problem lies I think, someone elses politics are being forced upon you when you just want to be united as a workforce. Why should a political agenda be an issue when the workforce is trying to secure a decent meal allowance for example?Maybe the way forward is for the workforce to organise themselves as a group without paying into some organisation that doesn’t really have your direct or immediate concerns at heart?
I’ve had a good look at this over the last few days right back to the beginning and the Tolpuddle martyrs etc, I wonder what they would have made of it now?
That’s exactly the issue.The unions got side tracked from the real agenda which should just be about terms and conditions in the workplace nothing more onto the bs idealist socialist cause.In which case it then became all about the careers of people like Callaghan,Blair,Brown and Prescot v Thatcher who are all the same bunch of tossers at the end of the day.While the employers have been able to take adavantage of all that and are now in the position of being able to dictate terms and conditions based on an economy which is all about weak unions and dictatorial government which all those leaders supported and in which Socialist or Tory are all the same thing.
However you won’t fix that problem by continuing with having weak unions made up of a rank and file that’s been indioctrinated into thinking that being ‘militant’ is a bad thing and who therefore aren’t up for a fight with both the employers and the government,regardless of wether that government calls itself Socialist or Tory,as and when required which is the relevant point.It’s that change in rank and file outlook which has caused the present state of the economy compared to where it was during the 1960’s/70’s.The fact is there have been plenty of so called militant workforces over the years who wouldn’t regard themselves as Socialists and who have had to fight against both Tory ‘and’ so called Labour government economic policies which favour the employers in the course of industrial disputes.The surprising thing is why the unions still wish to keep their ties with the so called Labour government when history shows that the party is anything but when push comes to shove between workers and their employers.
However it’s naive in the extreme not to think that any industrial dispute doesn’t also involve the government in addition to the employers one way or another being that the government has a direct interest and responsibility in the figures which industry puts out often in addition to MP’s having a direct financial interest in the employers involved and there’s never been a large scale industrial action in history in which the government didn’t get involved with directly or indirectly.
So the politicisation of industrial action,between union members and employers,is actually more government led not union led.However notwithstanding any of that that the unions have often allowed themselves to be sidetracked by that issue into erroneous support of the so called Socialists and the Labour Party by thinking that they’ll get a better deal by doing so.Which is how Blair got into power and it’s why the economy is where it is now and not running the type of growth figures which it had in the early 1970’s.
Carry on reading about it. The “Tolpuddle Martyrs” is a good starting point but read other sources. The question of “Political Agendas” and where a workforce stands will become clearer.
In fact you don’t need read the heavy stuff. Take a look at what politicians, your own MP for instance, pay for and what they don’t (Expenses) since becoming MP’s! then ask yourself how they get paid for what they do and spend and not the workforce? They certainly wouldn’t get it outside of parliament. This is where certain sections of the media propaganda comes into play. They will say its OK for MP’s, “Banksters” corporations, CEO’s employers, but not the workforce, and people believe it.
They turn the concept of social welfare on its head. Capitalism for the poorest in society. Social welfare for the rich and influential.
Example. Workforce benefits, decent wages of any kind including the NHS bad.
Low pay, poverty, austerity, Corporate and “Bankster” welfare good.
Sheesh! Must get of my soap-box again or I’ll get mauled by the TN crew. 
Solly:
@manic-mercCarry on reading about it. The “Tolpuddle Martyrs” is a good starting point but read other sources. The question of “Political Agendas” and where a workforce stands will become clearer.
In fact you don’t need read the heavy stuff. Take a look at what politicians, your own MP for instance, pay for and what they don’t (Expenses) since becoming MP’s! then ask yourself how they get paid for what they do and spend and not the workforce? They certainly wouldn’t get it outside of parliament. This is where certain sections of the media propaganda comes into play. They will say its OK for MP’s, “Banksters” corporations, CEO’s employers, but not the workforce, and people believe it.
They turn the concept of social welfare on its head. Capitalism for the poorest in society. Social welfare for the rich and influential.
Example. Workforce benefits, decent wages of any kind including the NHS bad.
Low pay, poverty, austerity, Corporate and “Bankster” welfare good.Sheesh! Must get of my soap-box again or I’ll get mauled by the TN crew.
Actually the NHS is just a typical case of Socialism being all about helping the employers by providing a rationed sub standard cheap rate service like the Staffordshire case in order to save the employers from having to pay the type of wages needed to fund decent health care at realistic type costs.
The fact is workers wouldn’t need state benefits of any kind if the unions threw out their ideas and support for the bs socialist way in favour of just going for wages which reflect the true costs of living including privately funded health and social security and retirement provision.But they won’t get that with the present rank and file weakness and aversion to a fight whenever needed.In which case it’s just more of the same of some subsidising others and often those ‘others’ calling the ‘some’ scroungers when it’s their turn to need to claim on the socialist system.
This is where it goes wrong, why should a working man be getting caught up in such lofty issues. We are only interested in what affects us now.
I think naive is trying to influence how a country is run with no experience other than the teachings of the union and its propaganda. Just because you have an ideology doesn’t make you qualified or even competent to run a bath, let alone trying to dictate policy for a country. We saw that in the 70’s, when the unions brought the country close bankruptcy and anarchy. British Leyland, British Steel, British Rail, British Coal etc etc are all companies consigned to to annals of history and all beacuse of supposedly bad management with the unions washing their hands of any involvement and acting whiter than white.
As a working man I want someone to stand up for me and with me in a positive way to improve things, not to tell me how great a socialist paradise could be. I’m a truck driver, its what I do and what i’m good at. I do not think for one minute me or any of my colleagues could run our company with no training or experience, but a union chair or shop steward thinks he has the knowledge to tell the managemnet how to do it and if the management then listen to these clowns and it goes wrong, its because of bad management! Now that has to be the greatest get out of jail free card in the world?
manic-merc:
This is where it goes wrong, why should a working man be getting caught up in such lofty issues. We are only interested in what affects us now.
I’ve taken one point of your post as there are to many to address and everyone will be getting bored.
IMHO This is the most important and should be realised.
Because they are “Issues” that affect everything that governs your life. They are “Issues” fuelled by “Ideology” which is engineered and employed so as not to benefit “A Working Man” or woman. “Ideology” my friend rules us as individuals, as a nation and as world citizens.
“Ideology” is not exclusive to the “Working peoples” of the world, but you wouldn’t think so listening to and reading the views of the wealthy and influential. They have their own “Ideology” and you are living it now and believe it it will get worse.
As for your examples of who you consider nearly brought the country to “Bankruptcy” there’s only one institution that have succeeded in doing that (The Financial Crash 2007-08) and it was though their “Ideology” that it happened and you and the next generation at least, are into debt slavery for the rest of your lives. Don’t take my word for it. Look around and see what’s happening.
Apologies to all those disinterested people looking in.
manic-merc:
This is where it goes wrong, why should a working man be getting caught up in such lofty issues. We are only interested in what affects us now.I think naive is trying to influence how a country is run with no experience other than the teachings of the union and its propaganda. Just because you have an ideology doesn’t make you qualified or even competent to run a bath, let alone trying to dictate policy for a country. We saw that in the 70’s, when the unions brought the country close bankruptcy and anarchy. British Leyland, British Steel, British Rail, British Coal etc etc are all companies consigned to to annals of history and all beacuse of supposedly bad management with the unions washing their hands of any involvement and acting whiter than white.
As a working man I want someone to stand up for me and with me in a positive way to improve things, not to tell me how great a socialist paradise could be. I’m a truck driver, its what I do and what i’m good at. I do not think for one minute me or any of my colleagues could run our company with no training or experience, but a union chair or shop steward thinks he has the knowledge to tell the managemnet how to do it and if the management then listen to these clowns and it goes wrong, its because of bad management! Now that has to be the greatest get out of jail free card in the world?
I think you’ve missed every word that I wrote in those previous replies.You’re obviously one of those who’ve been indoctrinated by the CBI and government ( both Tory and Labour ) bs concerning the so called 1970’s.The fact is this country has never had better economic growth figures before or since than those of the early 1970’s as opposed to the early 20th century and then since the late 1970’s and the election of Thatcher.
By your logic the economy was doing better in real terms during the 1920’s/30’s and then got even better under Callaghan,Thatcher,Blair and now Cam and Clegg.The common link between Britain’s often flatlining economy has been weak unions without the strength to defeat both the employers ‘and’ the government’s economic policies which are all about looking after the interests of the bankers and the CBI.Whereas the short period of strong economic growth we had was no surprise at the same time as union power and action was at it’s height.The fact is you need to seperate the fact from the fiction in that the job of looking after the workers’ interests can often look like the union is trying to run both the country and the firm because sometimes,if not often,that’s what it takes.
However the alternative is what we’ve got now which is actually closer to what you’re describing in that the union musn’t do anything to upset both the government and the employers by way of using force and militancy to get what it wants.Contrary to your ideas of the 1970’s we’ve actually had your idea since at least the election of Thatcher and look where that’s got the economy compared to where it was in 1972. 
I seem to reacll most of the 70’s was pretty bleak and but things looked up in the 80’s, now who was in power then…
A worker isn’t interested in trends, economic policies or the interest of bankers or anything else. He is intrested in, can i put food on my table, can I pay my bills, can I improve my standard of living, can afford a new car or holiday.
That should be the only thing a Union should worry about, making life better for its members, but thats does not mean demanding 15% payrises and ludicrous working conditions. I’ve always wondered how a union official with no training or access to company accounts can possiblt be in a postition to know what can and can’t be afforded in the way of payrises?
It is no conicidence that union membership is on the wane, the concept is outdated as are their ideas and their whole philosophy. I don’t believe that conflict and militancy achieves anything, in fact it costs money and put companies out of buisness and people out of work. Heres a thought, ditch the political agendas, register as a charity and do what you promise and look after the vulnerable and mistreated, oh my oh gosh what a radical notion!
As for the union having to run the country because that is what it takes, lets just go the whole hog and launch Stalin idol and live in a socialist workers paradise, cos that worked didn’t it!
manic-merc:
I seem to reacll most of the 70’s was pretty bleak and but things looked up in the 80’s, now who was in power then…
I can recall the ( early ) 1970’s and the 1980’s too and your recollection is wrong.
What made the 1970’s ‘bleak’ was joining the EEC and failure of the government to use north sea oil to insulate us from OPEC’s oil embargo and resulting oil price increases and both the Tory ‘and’ Labour governments stitching up the workers by trying to use wage restraint to control the resulting price led inflation.
Then Thatcher got in and the rest is history.Her economic policies caused a crash that was worse than anything seen since the early 20th century and every period of economic growth we’ve had since then has ended soon after in a crash because the unions aren’t strong enough to keep wage levels high enough to sustain it.
economicshelp.org/blog/wp-co … 9-2010.jpg
By the way the US unions have had to fight harder over the years than their British counterparts to get the US economy where it was during the 1960’s as opposed to the 1930’s and before.Then,just like Thatcher,Reagan got in and just like here the rest for the US economy was history.However I don’t think that US workers and their unions were known for their support of Stalinist ideology.Whereas it’s the Russians and the Chinese Communist Party who’ve actually benefitted most from Thatcher’s and Reagan’s and the following UK and US adminitrations’ economic policies.
You may be wasting your time CF…looks as tho’ the OP is phishing and had already made up his mind about Unions.
agree with solly and cf withregards this topic only got to look around and see the lack of collective barganing in the haulage industry on behalf of drivers over the last 20 years+ to see the deteriation in wages and working conditions, which have been undercut continuosly by companies in the race to the bottom.
Unions yes get their fair share of criticism but a company which where their is union representation for the drivers is far better for an individual and drivers collectively at least they will and the drivers will give it a go at standing up for you in the sense of improving your take home pay and terms of work.
When haulage companies have their weekly management meeting the directors executives etc dont sit round the board room table discussing ways and means of improving drivers pay etc more likely the opposite subsequently one individual within a company isnt going to make his/her managers increase his pay etc best off having collective barganing.
Unions take the blame for dimise of companies which is incorrect more often this is down to bad management how many companies employ managers that have no experience within the haulage industry? employed on the whim of university graduation likewise unions cannot take the blame if this is not the case many instances where companies undercut and numerous other tricks of the trade(turning blind eye or bending rules regulations etc) which have forced many out of business.