Forum menu
Your wife could and should claim the parking fine back on expenses from her company. Its even tax allowable I think.
Good luck.
Some unions are better than others, but
1 You earn more in a unionised workplace
Average earnings are around 8% higher in unionised workplaces.
2 You get more annual leave in a unionised workplace
The average trade union member in the uk gets 29 days annual leave a year, compared with 23 days for
non-unionised workers.
3 You get better training
Workers in unionised workplaces are more likely to receive job-related training.
4 You get more maternity leave or parental leave
Unionised workplaces are 12% more likely to have parental policies in place, which are more generous than
the statutory minimum.
5 You're more likely to get equal pay for work of equal value
Workplaces with union recognition are 20% more likely to have an equal opportunities policy in place.
Despite equal pay legislation, women currently earn only 83p for every £1 earned by a man.
6 You're less likely to be sacked
Trade union members are only half as likely to be sacked as non-members.
7 You're less likely to be discriminated against in terms of age, disability, race or sex
Black and asian trade unionists earn 32% more than their non-unionised colleagues. Trade unions have
campaigned for tougher anti-discrimination laws, which are coming into effect in 2003, making it illegal to
discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief, marital or family status, sexual orientation or gender
reassignment.
8 You're less likely to be injured at work
All employers have a legal duty to provide a safe workplace and safe equipment and working methods, but
unionised workplaces have health and safety officers to make sure the employer sticks to their legal
obligations.
9 If you get injured at work, you'll get better compensation
Unions won over £321 million in legal compensation for people who were injured or became ill at work in
2000.
Based on my personal observations of UNITE, I'd steer clear.
Let us know what happens, and best of luck.
Looking on the bright side - maybe they want to promote you or offer you a better job ? 😀
You say you are a Financial Services Salesman and that you have done nothing wrong. I think I see the problem.
It's bonus discussion time, innit?
😉
You work in financial services, so youre responsible for the failure of the global ecconomy.
I dont think youre about to get a medal or a Jim will fix it badge.
Jim will fix it badge
going all RP on us project?
Mal thank you. You just illustrated my point perfectly. Not one of the things you list there highlights a benefit for the business that employs that unionised employee. Of course unions fight for their members to get better terms and conditions that's their job. But just because they negotiate those terms doesn't mean that they are making the company more eficient better run or more competitive, they only serve the interests of their members.
Oh and by the way I am in the top 7% of earners in the uk as are most ofmy friends and none of us have ever been in a union.
I said FS not banking!
He's spotted how brilliant you are and is going to offer you a great big pay rise and a go on his secretary.
Financial services and banking,like a paying for a prostitute,its a short term feeling of euphoria,then its all over and you wonder was it worth it.
Banking is like haveing a **** you leave a deposit with both.
Seriously best wishes for tomorrow.
Not one of the things you list there highlights a benefit for the business that employs that unionised employee.
Why exactly is that a problem? Businesses have no fiduciary responsibility to their employees, only the shareholders. Although I would agree that the best outcomes are where co-operation exists between both sides.
Not one of the things you list there highlights a benefit for the business that employs that unionised employee
Apart from having a healthier, safer, better trained, happier and therefore more productive workforce.
🙂
Hope tomorrow goes well.
samuri got closest to a possible option 4 - a promotion. Ok I know it's a long shot these days, but you never know...
Bushwacked, is her name sara? in which case how is she and the kid?
Im a Free marketeer. My economic philosophy is not tied to any particular political ideology.
I don't even know where to begin with this particular lollacaust but as long as you're happy believing it then that's cool.
I hope all is well for you Bushwacked and that witnesses weren't necessary.
Redundancy needs all sorts of hoops to be jumped thru - so I doubt its that.
Not so. They can simply march you off site and as long as they bung you more cash than you could hope to recover by winning a wrongful dismissal case its job done.
I don't even know where to begin with this particular lollacaust but as long as you're happy believing it then that's cool.
No, do go on, professor HeathenWoods. Im fascinated by your presumption about my politics.
Anyway, I hope Bushwacked is able to get to his workstation and fill us in...rather than have a bin-bag thrust in his paws and an escort off the premises.
uponthedowns - MemberRedundancy needs all sorts of hoops to be jumped thru - so I doubt its that.
Not so. They can simply march you off site and as long as they bung you more cash than you could hope to recover by winning a wrongful dismissal case its job done.
You think?,...when an employer is trying to save money?
No, do go on, professor HeathenWoods. Im fascinated by your presumption about my politics.
Hell no, you tell me how a "free marketeer" is unconnected to any form of political ideology and how markets and political contexts are unconnected.
I tell you what, just to start with, what does "free" refer to? Free from what? Butterflies? Aardvarks? Saturn? I'm certainly looking forward to what you the market should - in your view - be free from which has no connection to politics...
stoner I think it is reasonable to state that those who are right wing believe in a small state, personal responsibility, limited /no regulation and therefore free [b]from state intervention[/b] market economics.
Stoner is one of them anarcho-capitalists, iirc. Never mind the bollox, here's Adam Smith!
More importantly...OP...update ?
Really if you are can you start a thread on it PLEASE.
Just been reading the thread.
Must agree that taking contemporanious notes is vital. A court will accept those as evidence as long as they are writtne at the time.
However, not the main reason for posting, I was just pondering Stoners "freemarketeer" claim. Does that not go to the very essence of the political divide in this country? Surely thats what its all about... The Sod you Jacks (i'm all right) v Beer and Sandwiches brigade ?
Seems to me that Afganhistan is a free market in the truest sense, and I believe that it is known as feudalism.
You think?,...when an employer is trying to save money?
Yes Cynic-al. Its happened to me and a number of my colleagues. Even if they bung you a years salary they're still saving in the long run.
In all my posts on economics in here I've advocated allowing markets to settle prices except in those few areas where social good cannot be solved by market actors. What I abhor is interference in active markets by the government for the sake of it. It invariably induces the formation of black markets or moves transactions outside of the legislative area. If anyone thinks that a Tobin tax or 50% Income tax is going to fix anything they should look at the case studies. The politics of spite do not fix anything. I, paradoxically, believe in total taxation levels remaining roughly where they are, not lower, but they should be made much more progressive in nature (I wont go into it here, but you can read it on other posts Ive made).
I am not right wing. I believe in state schools, health care free at the point of delivery for all, nationalised transport infrastructure and unemployment benefit. All because in none of these areas does the market provide effective services to the individual. In these areas, though the market CAN provide cost effective service to the state. Private medical companies competing to sell services to the NHS that the NHS then administers to the user, if done correctly*, should provide the best value for money to the state.
I disklike unions because they distort the market under the cover of protection that they have in law. If that legal protection wasnt there, then the market would sort it out by firing the strikers in the interest of keeping the economic corporate entity alive and efficient even if smaller. Too many times the unions see the [b]scale[/b] of employment as a right or due and they strike for it. That kills companies by not allowing them to adapt to market changes.
None of that makes me neither right nor left wing.
* To date it hasnt particularly.
Unions
My workplace started a "No Smoking In The Grounds" policy and threatened disciplinary action against anyone smoking in the grounds, including in their own cars. Given the grounds are quite extensive, I asked my union rep what would be the response if either someone was attacked whilst leaving the grounds, or quoted fear of attack as a defence if disciplined (it's winter, it's dark, there have been muggings in the car parks). No answer. On any of the 3 times I asked.
Invited to the AGM - asked if there was an agenda available told "someone was coming to talk about pensions". Asked about an agenda and minutes. No reply. Asked about querying the safety of staff in the car parks. No reply.
Unions. Great value if keeping some lazy fekwit in a job is what it's all about.
Ah, Stoner will not be provoked, but here's some Thoreau. 😉
[i]"'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."[/i]
Henry David Thoreau, [i]Civil Disobedience[/i].
Back on topic: hope it turns out ok
Surely thats what its all about... The Sod you Jacks (i'm all right) v Beer and Sandwiches brigade ?
that's what the politically tribal would want you to believe. Personal political/economic philosophy doesnt have to be all or nothing manifesto stuff you know.
comrade, Ive told you before about that Thoreau waffle - you'll go all feral on us and be living in a hut if you carry on 😉
A hut? Who needs that kind of [i]infrastructure[/i]? 😀
stoners politics thread hijack
what happened with the ops meeting has he had it yet
was it about too much time spent on this site?
pffft.
Just killing time 'till the OP gets back and fills us in.
Personal political/economic philosophy doesnt have to be all or nothing manifesto stuff you know.
Whilst I would agree that it is possible for the "have nots" to take a middle stance politically, its virtually impossible for the "haves" to do so. Quite simply free market means the survival of the fittest. Regretably those who argue for that system are rarely prepared to take that fight on an equal footing. If they were I might be tempted to go along with the concept rather more. In essence what I mean by that is along the lines of pass nothing on to your kids, ensure that they receive the same standard of education as everyone else, and stand back and wait for the free market to help them find their own level.
Odds on he's been sacked for excessive use of the internet for forum use.
I disklike unions because they distort the market under the cover of protection that they have in law. If that legal protection wasnt there, then the market would sort it out by firing the strikers in the interest of keeping the economic corporate entity alive and efficient even if smaller. Too many times the unions see the scale of employment as a right or due and they strike for it. That kills companies by not allowing them to adapt to market changes.
Sorry stoner but I'm going to have to take you to task on this one. Without trade unions acting the interests of the work force the market would force progressively worse working conditions. Wages, benefits, and worker safety would all be sacrificed in the interests of business. Unions provide an essential stop on the worst excesses of free market economics. I'm not suggesting from one minute that they are perfect, but then neither is the market.
Do we know what happened this is dead exciting!
If unions are so terrible, why is it that countries with high employee protection and high levels of unionisation, are also more productive countries than us?
And if anyone thinks that unions are a problem because they distort the market, I suggest you move to DR Congo, where the market is completely free.
Wages, benefits, and worker safety would all be sacrificed in the interests of business
all of which are protected in law.
The only argument for unions on those subjects is the [u]extension[/u] of "worker's rights". Taken to extremis much greater expansion of protected matters would slowly kill all unionised business. Oh look... Royal Mail arent too clever right now, are they? I wonder why not?
For those who trot out the "unions sought and won workers rights" argument, I agree - to a point - but now tell us whether you think the strength of current protected rights (which is all of those stated above) is sufficient or whether they should be extended?
I applaud the protection of workers' rights, and now they are in law, they are very much protected. From here on in though, unless those pro-unionists amongst you are appealing for an extention to those rights in either scale or breadth, then all you now do is support the unions as a belligerent beast demanding more for less, no? Hardly the stuff of the Tolpuddle martyrs anymore is it?
And where's Bushwacked - this is gettign worrying...
What I abhor is interference in active markets by the government for the sake of it.
Originally what we did/had in the early days of the industrial revolution was no regulation. Not of working hours, health care, education, unemployment benefit etc. At the time the mill owners and those who were making the money * were not exactly noticed for beneficence to their fellow man. Rather they worked people and children for 12 hours a day, paid them in tokens to be spent at their own shops, deducted damages to machines from their wages, let them live in unsanitary overcrowded housing near the mills ...in general treated them very badly. We introduced regulation in response to the effects of an unregulated free market and the Unions sprung from the uprisings of the workers against the free market forces that were hitting them. Ironically I assume they were created by the market forces of the masses who were unregulated in their ability to organise themselves?
* with some obvious exceptions like the Bourneville village
From here on in though, unless those pro-unionists amongst you are appealing for an extention to those rights in either scale or breadth, then all you now do is support the unions as a belligerent beast demanding more for less, no?
You may as well argue that we have good H & S now so we don’t need to inspect premises anymore or we have good clean water so we can just stop checking that, we have excellent consumer protection now so no need for Trading standards etc . You assume the employers/businesses would not go back to their bad all ways , the ones we had to legislate to stop them doing in the first place, if we no longer checked them. Legislation has always responded to what they did when they were not regulated.
the absence of unions, Junkyard, does not imply turning a blind eye.
The basic mechanisms of protection are now statutory - they're not going anywhere. The protection of these rights is not a continued argument for unionism.
The only viable argument for unionism is collective bargaining on wage, hours for a wage, and benefits. None of which, IMO, need any union involvment to keep them above/below mandatory floors/ceilings for the protection of workers conditions. The union cause is now solely to maximise the gains of the collective unit regardless of productivity, worth, efficiency or merit.
Pretty much agree with most of what Stoner says. I'm sick of the politcally moribund dogmatists (made up word but I like it) telling me what I do and don't believe when more often than not their the ones with a limited view of the world.
Like Stoner I believe in a free market approach with subtle and appropriate government regulation to unsure the less well off don't get trampled. Governments can't control societys or economys, at best they can guide them. They certainly can't have a very significant or positive impact with all the headline, knee jerk initiatives that the main two parties keep rehashing.
Right, Unions, have their place, particularly useful for defending the rights of a specific individual in specific circumstances, not so useful when it comes to group barganing. All depends on the type of union rep you've got, politician type in it for their own glory - tends to equal group barganing, supportive type - tends to be positive, sorts bullying and other individual problems.
As I said before I think some of you have a rather one sided view of redundancies, in some cases there will be lots of consultation etc. but in many cases it's your jobs at risk, two days later it's confirmed, here's a bung above statutory redundancy now b*gger off. Yes it may not be legal or morally right but from a practical stand point do you want to keep working for a company that behaves like that, that treats you like that. Take them to tribunal by all means, you may even win, but the pay out will be low and you'd generally have been better off diverting your energies into finding a new job. Not right but practical.
OP - hope it's not as bad as you think. Just try and keep the moral high ground even if the employer is down in the dirt, I've been there, twice and the only positive thing to come out of it was at least I stayed professional. Probably was best in the long run too as I moved on rather than let some amoral git trash my life.
What Stoner and Stumpy are actually saying here is that freemarkets are OK as long as they can write the rules for them to suit themselves. Sorry guys you can't have it both ways. Either the market is free or it isn't....that also includeds the freedom for other people to have an input surely?