Why Join a Union?

[DarloRich]

Thompsons seem to have TU legal work sown up!

 

[Trackman]

Never said I would join a union, but when 'severance' and 'voluntary redundancies' came up, I was in like a shot!
In the railway industry unions are not 'in your face' unlike some other industries, that's just from personal experience.

 

[AntoniC]

I am an established Civil Servant with 29 years service and have been a member of a Union since the day I joined the Civil Service.

Currently it cost me £10.00 to be a member of the PCS Union , and for me its money well spent when you consider in the past :

I was off with stress and depression for 6 months

I was falsely accused of sexual harassment at work and

I was found (correctly) of minor misconduct.

The first two events could have led to my dismissal.

Like others have said, I may not agree with the political leadership of my Union, but the help and support I have received from my local rep has been invaluable.

 

[theageofthetra]

I am an established Civil Servant with 29 years service and have been a member of a Union since the day I joined the Civil Service.

Currently it cost me £10.00 to be a member of the PCS Union , and for me its money well spent when you consider in the past :

I was off with stress and depression for 6 months

I was falsely accused of sexual harassment at work and

I was found (correctly) of minor misconduct.

The first two events could have led to my dismissal.

Like others have said, I may not agree with the political leadership of my Union, but the help and support I have received from my local rep has been invaluable.

Out of interest did your unions legal cover allow you to get compensation from the odious individual who made the false allegation against you?

 

[AntoniC]

Out of interest did your unions legal cover allow you to get compensation from the odious individual who made the false allegation against you?

TBH , I didn't even bother consider doing that, I was grateful to still have my job at the end of the year long ordeal.

I then took the opportunity to move to a different office to be away from that person.

 

[theageofthetra]

TBH , I didn't even bother consider doing that, I was grateful to still have my job at the end of the year long ordeal.

I then took the opportunity to move to a different office to be away from that person.

An ordeal you deserve being compensated for. Vermin like that deserve a punishment.

 

[AntoniC]

An ordeal you deserve being compensated for. Vermin like that deserve a punishment.

Well before I left I anonymously told some people what happened.

I left with my reputation intact, her reputation is now mud and no one trusts her.

For me that's enough.

The rules say that she was entitled to make the allegation, which I do support.

But I am now away from her and that's good enough for me.

 

[kevconnor]

I can say I see it from both management and employee sides. I work in Employee Relations (not in railways) and have supported both managers and employees. The unions do make sure things are done correctly and they are very good at supporting employees when the wish to raise grievances or concerns, especially where there may be a culture of fear of being the one to lift your head above the parapet. I am also a member of Unite and was previously a member of Amicus, I wouldn't consider not being in a Union, even though I know the law as well as anyone I also know how much of an ass it can be and being in a union allows that extra level of protection. That is before come to the fact that in unionised workforce wages are higher, holidays are higher, sick pay is better, turn over is lower.

 

[whhistle]

I'd just like to thank everyone participating to not let this get into a union vs no-union debate.
Some very good replies - even though it may have seemed like I was trying to cause something in the opening post (not my intention :P)

It's been interesting to read the replies; I do see the benefits - even more so at the moment. It's just disappointing the company seems to have taken a turn I didn't think they would.

Perhaps my experience of Unions have been bad... to be honest from a single rep who seems to encompass everything I dislike about "the union". Maybe my next experience will be a lot better.

 

[bramling]

The RMT, for example state that the benefits include:

• Better pay
  
• Improved conditions
  
• Workplace representation
  
• Health and safety protection
  
• Full range of membership benefits
  
• Legal cover - workplace and criminal for you and your family
  
• Credit Union
  
• Full-colour monthly magazine - RMT News

However, I'd argue that most of those can be found elsewhere.
For example "better pay" - really? If you were not a member of the union, you'd get the same anyway.

A "colour magazine" - wow! Full colour!

I'd also argue with the "improved conditions" - there's no on-going improvement in conditions for many.

What it doesn't disclose is the "full range of member benefits" - well that are they?! The insurances? Yeah, most of those are available with packaged bank accounts.

What people seem to trumpet about is that "they'll get you off", which concerns me. If someone has done something wrong, enough to get the sack, then I wouldn't want anyone "getting them off" - they've done something unsafe!

Don't want to cause argument, just wondering why people join; especially when there's no clear price. I understand if nobody joins then the pay rises may be smaller, or non-existent but for a new entry person, is the union just an out-dated concept?

I don't really think it's true that the union exists to get people off. There are doubtlessly some reps who take the role to their head and become over excited, but good reps are worth their weight in gold - and I think most local management would agree that a decent rep can be an asset to management as well as staff. Often, for example, when you have someone who is being an arse about something, a good rep will say "give me 5 minutes with him" and inject some sense. Likewise, the role of the union is to ensure fairness and ensure company procedures are being followed.

Where relations sometimes break down is at levels more senior than depot level, where you start to get clashes of personality, power struggles etc.

 

[DaveTM]

Many (many) years ago, as a school pupil, we had a Maths teacher who was Conservative through and through to the point of wearing a blue rosette into school whenever there was an election on. The time came to pass when the teaching unions were threatening industrial action, so we naturally ribbed her: "So, are you going on strike then?"
"We'll see..."
"You're not a member of a union are you?!"
"I am!"
"Really! Which one!!!!?" - we were amazed.
"The NUT" - we were really amazed, because at the time the NUT was the most reactionary and left wing of all three major teachers' unions
"Why that one?"
"Because they have the best lawyers..."
Maybe it was purely for her own benefit, but even Ms Tory saw benefits to membership...

 

[goblinuser]

For example "better pay" - really? If you were not a member of the union, you'd get the same anyway.

If everyone thought this then the pay would almost certainly drop.

 

[fabs]

As a manager in this industry I would encourage anyone to join a union. I work closely with the reps, sometimes we fall out. Sometimes they are 'instructed' from above to persue a particular avenue; as are we managers sometimes.
I like to think I am a fair person so if an employee 'is in front of me' they won't necessarily need representation, but the work behind the scenes by the rep is invaluable.
At my level both the reps and I invariably have the same goal and that is that we both get the best we can from the TOC for the entire depot. It's above our level it gets a bit too political for my liking and I'm not always convinced they really have the best interests of their members at the heart of what they do.
Plus, if you disagree with the union position politically you can retain the services and opt out of a political levy.

 

[chris11256]

I work in IT within the independent school sector. I'm a member of ATL. For me the sole reason behind being a member is the legal protection that it offers. Which can be very important working in education, especially as I work in a boarding school and occasionally my job takes me into boarders living areas.

The union isn't involved in pay/employee relations, although it is recognised by my employer.

 

[Carlisle]

I can't believe the naivety and selfish attitudes of some people. It always astonishes me.

Most of those people probably aren't nearly as selfish or naive as you think. They're simply realistic that they don't happen to work in an industry or job that's easily brought to a virtual standstill by one successful strike ballot.

 

[ComUtoR]

Most of those people probably aren't nearly as selfish or naive as you think. They're simply realistic that they don't happen to work in an industry or job that's easily brought to a virtual standstill by one successful strike ballot.

I think part of the naivety is that people really do believe the union is only about strikes. That 1970's attitude runs both ways.

 

[Gathursty]

I think part of the nativity is that people really do believe in the immaculate conception. That 1970's attitude runs both ways.

 

[1018509]

I joined the RMT (NUR then) in 1971 mainly because I don't believe I would have got such a good redundancy package and final salary pension from Tube Lines (previously TfL, LUL, London Regional Transport, London Transport or any other combination of three words two of which seem to be London & Transport) without the union fighting for it.

Long live the railway unions.

 

[PudseyBearHST]

Sorry but this point in particular is very naive indeed. Just look at some of the high profile cases recently where people have been injured on the railway due fo their own stupidity and the staff involved have been prosecuted.

Let's face if the TOCs have a strong incentive to blame staff as much as possible, rather than admit that perhaps some working practices are not as safe as they would like to have people believe. Anyone can make a mistake or be unlucky. If you're unfortunate enough to be involved in an incident the union will help keep the TOC honest and ensure you are treated fairly - it's absolutely not about "getting people off".

I agree to some degree with your comment but I think you are thinking about very extreme examples where prosecution is concerned. e.g. Martin Zee or the Hayes Driver.
But a more common example would be a guard using a mobile phone during despatch procedure which is most definitely a sackable offence, for example. Of course, I am not trying to suggest that no-one deserves a second chance but to some extent you could say that the guard, with the help of the union, has been let off the hook (i.e. been given a second chance). And I am not making this example up. Of course, though, if this negligence resulted in serious injury/fatality then the ending would be very different.

 

[Bromley boy]

I agree to some degree with your comment but I think you are thinking about very extreme examples where prosecution is concerned. e.g. Martin Zee or the Hayes Driver.
But a more common example would be a guard using a mobile phone during despatch procedure which is most definitely a sackable offence, for example. Of course, I am not trying to suggest that no-one deserves a second chance but to some extent you could say that the guard, with the help of the union, has been let off the hook (i.e. been given a second chance). And I am not making this example up. Of course, though, if this negligence resulted in serious injury/fatality then the ending would be very different.

I mentioned the recent high profile cases as they provide excellent "shop window" examples of the benefits of union membership as that they ended up in the public eye and subject to (ruinously expensive for the individuals concerned) criminal trials.

Rather than getting bogged down in the facts of individual cases, which can never be fully known, my point is that. in each case, the union's role is limited to ensuring the company treats the employee in a manner which is consistent with the treatment of others in the same situation, and compliant with relevant law and practice.

An example being if an employee failed a drug and alcohol test - the union support would be limited to ensuring the relevant chain of custody procedure was adhered to - beyond that an employee who has failed is (quite rightly) completely on their own.

In short, the union acts as a check and balance to ensure due process - they don't go around threatening to strike unless negligent/incompetent employees are reinstated - although that is a common perception!

 

[PudseyBearHST]

I mentioned the recent high profile cases as they provide excellent "shop window" examples of the benefits of union membership as that they ended up in the public eye and subject to (ruinously expensive for the individuals concerned) criminal trials.

I obviously don't know the facts of the mobile phone case you mention. However I could equally point to a few cases where, despite union backing, people have been sacked for making simple errors - nothing as deliberately reckless as using a mobile phone.

Rather than getting bogged down in the facts of individual cases, which can never be fully known, my point is that. in each case, the union's role is limited to ensuring the company treats the employee in a manner which is consistent with the treatment of others in the same situation, and compliant with relevant law and practice.

An example being if an employee failed a drug and alcohol test - the union support would be limited to ensuring the relevant chain of custody procedure was adhered to - beyond that an employee who has failed is (quite rightly) completely on their own.

In short, the union acts as a check and balance to ensure due process - they don't go around threatening to strike unless negligent/incompetent employees are reinstated - although that is a common perception!

Point taken.

 

[fabs]

I'd be very interested in hearing about anyone being sacked 'for simple errors'. I don't think that happens nowadays.

As this thread is about union membership, were these people sacked because they weren't in a union or were they sacked despite being in a union?
Were they a first error or a capability issue (we are safety critical)?
This belief that TOCs just want to 'hang people' is just plain wrong; agreed, you get good and bad managers everywhere just as you get good and bad front line guys.

To use prosecutions as an example of TOCs attitude towards its employees is disengenous, that is out of their control. And to use the Martin Zee case as a TOC not supporting their employer is frankly way off the mark.

 

[Bromley boy]

I'd be very interested in hearing about anyone being sacked 'for simple errors'. I don't think that happens nowadays.

As this thread is about union membership, were these people sacked because they weren't in a union or were they sacked despite being in a union?
Were they a first error or a capability issue (we are safety critical)?
This belief that TOCs just want to 'hang people' is just plain wrong; agreed, you get good and bad managers everywhere just as you get good and bad front line guys.

To use prosecutions as an example of TOCs attitude towards its employees is disengenous, that is out of their control. And to use the Martin Zee case as a TOC not supporting their employer is frankly way off the mark.

In the driver role it's very easy to make simple errors (with potentially serious consequences) such as wrong side door releases, stop short/door releases. None of these are deliberate actions such as using a phone on duty, but they can certainly cost you your job*, union membership or not. Admittedly making just one is unlikely to, unless you're dishonest about it.

I meant to use prosecutions (ie funding for a criminal defence team) as an example of one of the benefits of union membership rather than TOC's attitudes. Perhaps I didnt make that clear. I do take your point that it's the CPS, rather than TOC management, you have to worry about there.

However there is something of a blame culture on the railway and, as with any employer, there is always the chance of an overzealous manager with a vendetta against an individual. This is where the union, with knowledge of how similar cases have been treated in the past, can ensure a level playing field.

*I'm not saying this is wrong - just making the point that union membership isn't some kind of charter to behave however you wish and expect to keep your job. I've spoken to people outside the industry who believe that if a driver turns up to work drunk, the union will threaten to strike to save their job - quite rightly this is not the case.