I do so hope barca works a 12 hr day 6 days a week with no paid holidays, no sick pay and should he become unemployed won't ever take any benefits - cos without unions that would be his lot.
those of you with 'nothing to hide'
Pinochet and Franco.... moustache looks a bit similar, and you never saw them together did you..... Hmmmmm, two wages for the same job in two different countries, wonder what Union he was in?
I think some of the posters on this thread need to wind their necks in a bit.
As an employer I'd quite like to know some relevant info about potential employees, equally I'm not interested in bullshit about said potential employees.
With regard the unions are we all to young/old to remember how they **** up britsh industry sometime ago.
I would like to think that a nice reality would be that if you are or have been a cock at work and caused significant problems then you should become unemployable. Basically if you are moron/lazy/difficult then why should I waste my money on employing you and then have the grief of getting rid?
Equally if you are a good working/intelligent/contributing memeber of the team then you should be rewarded.
If you fall into the second category how pissed off would you be if you missed a job/promotion becuase the employer was unaware of anothers poor performance/behaviour?
Could keep on with this but I'm gonna stop now cos I think there will be many comebacks to answer.
I am old enough to have been a union member and activist for 30 yrs and I have seen many people get great service from their unions - saving ordinary folk for unfair treatment. As for the 70s union f ups - it would be hard to deny but it takes too to have a fight. How come Germany has high union membership and low industrial action - simply because management listen to the concerns of the workforce. Happy workers are productive, unhappy ones are not.
Its no coincidence we have weak unions now and worse terms and conditions as well as lower productivity than our European counterparts.
As an employer I'd quite like to know some relevant info about potential employees
So you wouldn't be bothered about the Data Protection Act then ?
I would suggest that as an employer if you weren't concerned with operating within the law, you should be forced to cease all your business activities, and prosecuted for any offences committed.
Or do you think employers are above the law ?
I fear having to prove I have nothing to hide.
I think there may be some point missing going on.
If as an employee you have been less than efficient in your role and compounded that by being generally difficult/dishonest/workshy etcetc then surely its in my interest know that?
I wouldn't suggest anyone doing anything outside the law but maybe more transparency would result in happier employer/employee relationships. There is nothing more destructive for a team than to have a bad egg in their midst.
Lets face it in these trying times surely the disciplined productive workers deserve a bigger bite of the cherry than those who have been disruptive and openly aggressive towards their employer?
I just feel that the good guys deserve better and that the bad guys deserve everything they get.
It depends what you mean by a "bad guy". In this particular case, people who had raised H&S concerns or stood up for their employment rights were "bad guys".
I don't know if you think people are stupid olie, but it is perfectly legal to sack someone for misconduct in the UK.
Furthermore, the UK has some of the worst employment protection in the Western World.
And indeed in 1997, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, wrote in the Sun newspaper, quote :
"we will still have the most restrictive union laws in the Western world"
This was blacklisting people for being union stewards. Illegal in several ways.
As for concerns about sacking idiots - its easy to do so. I have been both a union steward and a manger of a multimillion pound 130+staff organisation so I have seen employment law from both sides.
Ernie, absolutely but the person sacked for misconduct has no reason to tell you why they where sacked or offer that job/manager as a referee.
I don't have a beef with unions or people doing the right thing, indeed there should be some protection for people who have been wronged due to a position held in any union BUT should the same umbrella be held over people who use their union for trouble making and wrong doing? It is not beyond belief that that a union rep my do something they shouldn't for personal gain or to cause problems unneccesarily for the employer.
I have spent/wasted plenty of time compiling cases against employees who done the dirty when they shouldn't have even got to the interview stage due to past misdemeanours. Yes we could have just sacked them but you need to be very careful and cover your back.
Like I said I am in no way against people doing the right thing by their co-workers but there are 2 sides to this story. Why do you think these big businesses risk getting caught out. Is the penalty for using the blacklist less costly than ignoring the info on it?
For all you attempts to come across as 'holier-than-thou' olie, I find it astonishing that you should be defending construction companies which knowingly break the law.
I would be interested to know how you would feel about moving into an office or a house built by a company which freely flouts the law. Or are you selective about which laws construction companies should ignore and ride roughshod over ?
Why did they do it ? you ask - because they thought that they can get away with it, is the obvious answer. And up until now they were right. For decades the construction industry has operated blacklisting, but this is the first time that I've heard of any companies getting their comeuppance over it.
What makes these blacklisting cases particularly ridiculous is the fact that all the big boys mentioned in the reports hardly employ anyone at all - all their work is sub-contracted out. It a measure of how extreme, vindictive and nasty, these construction companies are that they should even go through all the bother of illegally employing the services of a blacklisting company.
And as I have already mentioned, it is extremely easy to sack a bad worker in the UK. The worst that can happen is that it will go to an industrial tribunal (which is very rare) and there it will be upheld anyway.
Furthermore, it is perfectly legal in the UK to sack someone unfairly in their first year of continuous employment - you can sack someone if you simply don't like their choice of socks. Something which many employers use, i.e. they automatically sack their employees as their first 12 months comes up.
Due to the casual nature of the construction industry, a very high percentage of workers will have worked less than year anyway. And of course very few workers in construction are actually PAYE, most are self-employed or agency, so sacking them a piece of p1ss.
But you don't have a problem with sacking people, do you olie ? What you're much more concerned about is that you think some people should never be offered a job in the first place. Anyone who has ever been sacked from a job should never work again, for the rest of their lives, according to you.
And whilst you claim that you quote, "don't have a beef with unions", you are quite happy to defend a blacklisting company which blacklists people for nothing more than being in a union. I'll remind you that being in a trade union is internationally recognised as being perfectly legal.
I don't know if you're an employer olie, but as far as I'm concerned with your contempt for the law of the land, I don't reckon that you're fit to be one.
Not only is union membership legal it's a human right.
see what you find when you search that, not a very nice thought.
This topic has been closed to new replies.