Unions

[rjan]

UKtramp:

robroy:
Just been told by a lad on the ‘‘Toilets’’ thread, that he worked for a parcel firm who…wait for it…
Did not allow them to stop for a ■■■■

And then some of you lot say their is no real need for a Union??
FFS!!

And so they need a union to allow the drivers to go for a ■■■■, FFS rob, I wouldn’t care who told me I couldn’t go for a a ■■■■, I would simply go for one if I needed to. There is not a person who would not if they had to go. Are you saying that you would ■■■■ yourself because you are not allowed to stop and go? There are such things nowadays called human rights and tribunals to take your employer to. I cannot see any tribunal going against the employee for that one.

I agree this is probably a more symbolic issue of how far things have fallen, and I’d be surprised if even the most unreasonable manager went beyond expressing harsh words at defiance of the rule, but the point of a union in this case is to ensure that the rule does not even arise in the first place, that allowances are baked into schedules for the start (so that the argument doesn’t arise about whether there is time for a toilet break), that the ante cannot be upped (for example, by docking pay or issuing formal disciplinary warnings), and that people are not even grilled for going the toilet (which is an adverse experience and a petty indignity in itself, regardless of whether you actually get away with it).

These are also the sorts of petty issues that managers can use to selectively harass individuals for ulterior motives.

I’ve become a lion tamer and I probably wouldn’t think much of having to justify myself if I stopped for a ■■■■, but fundamentally I should be able to go to work and get on with it, not having to engage in lion taming, and managers whose role need not be of the lion being spectacularly tamed, should also be able to do the same.

Unions have that other function too, in that it protects low-level managers from the unreasonable demands of their superiors in turn, and avoids them being degraded or pushed into constant conflict with the workforce, and ensures that appropriate attitudes exist at the senior level - and if necessary, that the only lion taming that occurs is between a minority of senior managers and union officers, who are paid to do so and cannot be as easily victimised for it as individuals.

Not least because the successful victimisation of an individual union officer, will just lead to him being replaced by another officer who will be of much the same bent and possibly even more wily and aggressive in light of his predecessor’s fate. The members who put a union officer in place are unlikely to feel victimised by anything that happens personally to the officer, unless it threatens the existence of the office itself, and that’s when everyone understands that the workplace has to shut to protect the principle that the members negotiate through an officer, not as individuals.

So employers can’t get their own way merely by shooting the messengers, whereas they can when those messengers are only acting for their own individual grievances.

[dle1uk]

Not stopping to have a ■■■■ ect, being in a union would not stop this tbh, as majority of the drivers that allow themselves to get treated this way will just carry on union or not…

My old man said something to me many years ago when he was a foundry manager, he pointed out that the really lower paid folk would bend over and do pretty much anything. But ask a better paid employee the same and he will tell you to go and do one. before anyone jumps the gun my old man didn’t use this to his advantage either, he looked after his staff so much so that after 30+ years of foundry closing due to thatcher, the guys still alive will buy him whisky when they see him…

[rjan]

dle1uk:
Not stopping to have a ■■■■ ect, being in a union would not stop this tbh, as majority of the drivers that allow themselves to get treated this way will just carry on union or not…

But are they actually in a union, if they won’t defend anyone’s right to ■■■■?

My old man said something to me many years ago when he was a foundry manager, he pointed out that the really lower paid folk would bend over and do pretty much anything. But ask a better paid employee the same and he will tell you to go and do one. before anyone jumps the gun my old man didn’t use this to his advantage either, he looked after his staff so much so that after 30+ years of foundry closing due to thatcher, the guys still alive will buy him whisky when they see him…

I’m sure there’s a bitter irony in there - i.e. 30 years after the high paid working class were smashed onto the same low pay as their former subordinates.

The lower paid will be more inclined to do as they are told for a variety of reasons. Partly, low pay reflects an underlying inequality of power against those on higher pay.

If you have the power to tell a man to do anything, you’ll probably tell him to put up with low pay, too. Whereas those on higher pay are so paid precisely because you don’t have the same latitude to tell them what to do.

To say your old man never took advantage, you probably mean took no advantage other than maintaining them on low pay (which I’m sure wasn’t his personal choice to begin with).

The other aspect is that low pay roles tend to include those who can’t organise their own work and cannot easily evaluate the appropriateness of their activity, and who therefore look to others to provide direction and invite that instruction. And they naturally admire those who can do what they cannot.

Again, there is a certain amount of reinforcement on pay - those who cannot organise themselves, probably can’t organise collective bargaining either or easily form a view on whether their wages are too little (and by what yardstick).

[robroy]

dle1uk:
Not stopping to have a ■■■■ ect, being in a union would not stop this tbh, as majority of the drivers that allow themselves to get treated this way will just carry on union or not…

…

Maybe so mate, but you miss the point.
If there WAS a Union in the first place, the idea of treating grown men in this deplorable way would never have got past the point of initial suggestion from some jumped up little 2at in a cheap suit trying to make a name for himself.
So being as there is no organised group
(or union/Union) to deter said little 2at, he got away with it with success.

Can I just get something straight here btw, I am NOT some militant strong headed red Union man arse…(seriously )
I am even starting to sound that way to myself in this thread.

Thing is I didn’t learn about 70s Unions at school (like a few that have contributed to this thread ) I had first hand experience, I worked in a factory in the 70s as a young lad where Unions were red hot, and genuinely ruled the roost as they got further and further out of hand.
There is NO way in hell I would want to go back to those days.
However the scales have been completely tipped over, things are at the other end of the spectrum whereby bosses can (and do) whatever tf they want, and what I would like to see is a happy medium.
Just to clarify.

[uktramp]

robroy:
Thing is I didn’t learn about 70s Unions at school (like a few that have contributed to this thread ) I had first hand experience, I worked in a factory in the 70s as a young lad where Unions were red hot, and genuinely ruled the roost as they got further and further out of hand.

The way things have gotten out of hand is not down to the lack of trades union membership, rather the workers themselves tend to be down trodden too easily themselves. Even down to the militant unionists like yourself rob, they too have crumbled as they realise unions are now not the power they were in the 70s. A union rep of today is generally out to make his own job better and if that means watching his mates get shafted on the way, so be it. I admit to having done deals with union reps to smooth the path to the managements will. I know exactly how corrupt business works and deals are done in an underhanded way out of the eyes of the unwary. Letters between management and unions, then the meetings take place without the local reps to see who will give what so it appears to be a victory. TUPE agreements made direct with who is involved and key personnel given different roles beneficial to them. Yes it all goes on and I have been involved with such dealings. My union dealings have been very tarnished.

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:
DHL Airfreight had a ruling like that, you were supposed to ring in for authorisation if heading to the airport hub, like they said, we don’t care what is taken out of the vehicle, we are more concerned about what is going in it!

Sounds nothing unusual or unreasonable in the need to ‘inform’ the management of any stops for an unscheduled break and their location.That then gets exaggerated out of all proportion in hearsay.Probably like the occasions that such stops are actually needed in the real world.

[carryfast]

UKtramp:
Even down to the militant unionists like yourself rob, they too have crumbled as they realise unions are now not the power they were in the 70s. A union rep of today is generally out to make his own job better and if that means watching his mates get shafted on the way, so be it. I admit to having done deals with union reps to smooth the path to the managements will. I know exactly how corrupt business works and deals are done in an underhanded way out of the eyes of the unwary. Letters between management and unions, then the meetings take place without the local reps to see who will give what so it appears to be a victory. TUPE agreements made direct with who is involved and key personnel given different roles beneficial to them. Yes it all goes on and I have been involved with such dealings. My union dealings have been very tarnished.

Ironically if I’ve read it right Rob isn’t a ‘militant’ 1970’s union man whereas I probably could be described as such.As I’ve said there seems to be a lot of exaggeration in that,probably fitting the anti union propaganda script.Bearing in mind that the need to ‘inform’ the management of leaving the work station,even in the case toilet breaks,was nothing unusual in many sectors of industry even in the most so called militant solid unionised of parts of that.Or for that matter unionised transport operations.On that note no manager would realistically expect anyone to not take a toilet break if they need to.Any suggestion of which can only possibly being inaccurate exaggerated hearsay.

As for the possibility of unbelievable deals between management and unions which actually lower terms and conditions.Yes,from experience,it definitely does happen.No surprise in that case that there’s no complaints from management regarding lack of consultation and balloting of the workforce regarding such deals,as opposed to in the case of calls for rejection and if needed action.

[dle1uk]

Yep when when I was involved in a union I saw 4 main reps give the position up as they got promoted onto management, its seen by so many nowadays as a step towards something better within the company.
rob not having a pop at all on my posts, if they come across that way I apologise… I think me and you and a fair few others would not allow ourselves to be treated in this manner and if we feel somethings wrong we will stand up… I suspect even I unions got involved in stuff like this so many would still carry on like before…

[robroy]

UKtramp:

robroy:
Thing is I didn’t learn about 70s Unions at school (like a few that have contributed to this thread ) I had first hand experience, I worked in a factory in the 70s as a young lad where Unions were red hot, and genuinely ruled the roost as they got further and further out of hand.

The way things have gotten out of hand is not down to the lack of trades union membership, rather the workers themselves tend to be down trodden too easily themselves. Even down to the militant unionists like yourself rob, they too have crumbled as they realise unions are now not the power they were in the 70s. A union rep of today is generally out to make his own job better and if that means watching his mates get shafted on the way, so be it. I admit to having done deals with union reps to smooth the path to the managements will. I know exactly how corrupt business works and deals are done in an underhanded way out of the eyes of the unwary. Letters between management and unions, then the meetings take place without the local reps to see who will give what so it appears to be a victory. TUPE agreements made direct with who is involved and key personnel given different roles beneficial to them. Yes it all goes on and I have been involved with such dealings. My union dealings have been very tarnished.

Let’s just agree to differ mate, we will never agree on this if we sit here all week, you have your opinions based on your experiences as I have mine.

I will agree with you however on your point about workers allowing themselves to be downtrodden, these are the guys who imo have been indocrinated in the view (maybe at school) that all things Trade Union are all things 70s militancy, (a bit like your opinion in fact) where as in reality this does not need to be the case.
For example look at Maoster’s position with his co. and compare it with the guy on here who drives for his co for 9 hours with his legs crossed and a grimaced face.

Btw can I just reiterate my points… I am neither a militant Trade unionist, nor do I want to go back to a 70s scenario…oh and I haven’t crumbled either. ( I did pick up on the wind up also.

[uktramp]

robroy:

UKtramp:

robroy:
Thing is I didn’t learn about 70s Unions at school (like a few that have contributed to this thread ) I had first hand experience, I worked in a factory in the 70s as a young lad where Unions were red hot, and genuinely ruled the roost as they got further and further out of hand.

The way things have gotten out of hand is not down to the lack of trades union membership, rather the workers themselves tend to be down trodden too easily themselves. Even down to the militant unionists like yourself rob, they too have crumbled as they realise unions are now not the power they were in the 70s. A union rep of today is generally out to make his own job better and if that means watching his mates get shafted on the way, so be it. I admit to having done deals with union reps to smooth the path to the managements will. I know exactly how corrupt business works and deals are done in an underhanded way out of the eyes of the unwary. Letters between management and unions, then the meetings take place without the local reps to see who will give what so it appears to be a victory. TUPE agreements made direct with who is involved and key personnel given different roles beneficial to them. Yes it all goes on and I have been involved with such dealings. My union dealings have been very tarnished.

Let’s just agree to differ mate, we will never agree on this if we sit here all week, you have your opinions based on your experiences as I have mine.

I will agree with you however on your point about workers allowing themselves to be downtrodden, these are the guys who imo have been indocrinated in the view (maybe at school) that all things Trade Union are all things 70s militancy, (a bit like your opinion in fact) where as in reality this does not need to be the case.
For example look at Maoster’s position with his co. and compare it with the guy on here who drives for his co for 9 hours with his legs crossed and a grimaced face.

Btw can I just reiterate my points… I am neither a militant Trade unionist, nor do I want to go back to a 70s scenario…oh and I haven’t crumbled either. ( I did pick up on the wind up also.

[robroy]

dle1uk:
Yep when when I was involved in a union I saw 4 main reps give the position up as they got promoted onto management, its seen by so many nowadays as a step towards something better within the company.
rob not having a pop at all on my posts, if they come across that way I apologise… I think me and you and a fair few others would not allow ourselves to be treated in this manner and if we feel somethings wrong we will stand up… I suspect even I unions got involved in stuff like this so many would still carry on like before…

I think I said on my first post on this that all groups and organisations are open to corruption and a haven for all those who like to feather their own nests.
I aint a big fan of Trade Unions, but I am a big fan of the concept, ie… a group of workers/drivers joining together to fend off unfair treatment, crap conditions, and all the rest of it.
That is as far as it goes with me, a poor man’s Arthur Scargill I am definitely NOT.
No need to apologise bud, none taken, I’ve had worse pops at me on here than that, trust me. .

On your other point I think you are looking for a couple of well known and true phrases to describe it such as …‘‘Drivers are their own worst enemies’’ mixed in with ‘‘Turkeys voting for Christmas’’ and a little bit of ‘’ ■■■■ unbelievable’’

[carryfast]

robroy:
Thing is I didn’t learn about 70s Unions at school (like a few that have contributed to this thread ) I had first hand experience, I worked in a factory in the 70s as a young lad where Unions were red hot, and genuinely ruled the roost as they got further and further out of hand.
There is NO way in hell I would want to go back to those days.
However the scales have been completely tipped over, things are at the other end of the spectrum whereby bosses can (and do) whatever tf they want, and what I would like to see is a happy medium.
Just to clarify.

Define unions ‘ruling the roost’ as opposed to ‘happy medium’.

Bearing in mind that soul destroying nature of factory work and the fact that even the 35 hour week,let alone 32 hour 4 day week which it would have taken to make it even remotely tolerable,remained nothing but a dream for all in my experience of the so called ‘militant’ 1970’s.Nor for that matter do I remember the miners even asking for that reasonable 21 hour 3 day week to at least stand a chance of protecting those who ended up crippled or dying horribly with black lung.If that’s supposed to be ‘ruling the roost’ who needs ‘happy medium’ for the employer classes.