This is a bit of a rant.
Our pay negations have been ongoing for 9 months now. Pay deal offered was a minimum of 8% uplift, unless you were towards / in the bottom of a band whereby those staff members would get a 10.5%. Quite a decent deal I thought.
The unions (of whom I'm not a member but circa 30% of the total workforce are) objected to this, but never made it public what their objections were, blocked the pay deal and prevented us from receiving a pay rise for the last 9 months.
Today it's just been announced that an agreement has been made last night and everyone is now just getting the flat 8% rise with seemingly no other no-financial rewards being offered.
Needless to say I was / am in the bottom of my band and now having to accept a lower pay rise as a result of the intransigence of a minority of staff.
I hope their next jobby is a large pineapple.
Eroding Differentials has been an issue in many pay negotiations for decades.
Can't the union take their agreed deal and let everyone else have what was offered in the first place?
Union acts for its members though, not the staff in general. If they agreed to the deal (and presumably, maybe on advice of the union, for whatever reason, rejected the deal initially) then the union can't just do what they feel is right.
For you it's a crap outcome but if you want a say you'll have to be part of the collective negotiation next time, I'm afraid.
I am in our union and voted yes to our pay deal earlier than others would have liked this year. The revised deal advantaged some and disadvantaged others, I was on the negative side too. So even if you're in, doesn't automatically mean you get what you wanted.
Is the award backdated?
Can’t the union take their agreed deal and let everyone else have what was offered in the first place?
Prob not, I assume the union is mandated to negotiate the deal that all staff get (NB, not quite the same as on behalf of all staff, as above)
Yep. Our experience of teaching unions is as negative.
mrs_oab last week: hello Union Rep, my job is up for being cut and this is against Scottish Government Policy, the information to make the finiacial cut is flawed/untrue, plus I have protected characteristics which are not being taken into account. I gather as my Union I can count on you for advice and hopefully fighting my corner?
Teaching Union: oh well, cuts are happening everywhere. Perhaps you should just suck it up?
*click*
*brrrrrrrr*
The union at our work frustrates me with pay negotiations. Similar to the OP, a bigger pay rise for lower paid was on the table but because the negotiating team is generally made up of more senior colleagues (on bigger pay hence not offered as big a rise) it was rejected, so back to the drawing board. Only about 20 or 30% of colleagues are in the union so if half of those don’t like it it’s kiboshed. Doesn’t feel right that 10/15% of colleagues can hold so much sway.
Union acts for its members though, not the staff in general. If they agreed to the deal (and presumably, maybe on advice of the union, for whatever reason, rejected the deal initially) then the union can’t just do what they feel is right.
Before this I was broadly ambivalent but tending towards favouring the concept of a union. Not being a member was more down to just never getting round to applying really.
After now being shafted by the unions out of a significant sum, they can go swivel if they think I'm going join and and set up a DD into their bank account each month.
Got to LOL at someone being upset that a union they aren’t a member of hasn’t taken their views into account.
Why are you not negotiating directly with your employer?
Got to LOL at someone being upset that a union they aren’t a member of hasn’t taken their views into account.
this, if you're not a member you can't complain that a union doesn't act in your interest.
Ours did something similar. Spent months and months in utter secrecy and then agreed a deal worth less than every other employee got while handing out a major contract change that is not in our favour.
I used to be very pro-union in my company but given that it mainly seems to fund business class tickets for commuters and expensive hotels, along with its own pension black hole, I’m on the edge of leaving and investing my 1% in something else.
The latest thing is a screwing over of a decent number of employees so that more senior people get to maintain their final salary pensions while we’re actively held back from promotion.
yep, our union is a chocolate fireguard for 50% of pop,
the problem is we have 50% shop floor/call centre (all on circa liveable wage) and the 50% professional/ headoffice / management who are on Salaries for their, role, skills and expertise
the unions will always go for the lowest paid which is fair enough, but we get nothing,
middle income earners have seen huge erosion to spending power.
this, if you’re not a member you can’t complain that a union doesn’t act in your interest.
This is a stance I have to disagree with. In what way is it acceptable for the union to actively work to disadvantage non members? Thats the definition of a protection racket; "Pay us money each month or we'll make sure your shafted"
For the first time in 20 years, I'm in an organisation that doesn’t recognise a union for collective bargaining. I was offered a 1% pay rise...
the union to actively work to disadvantage non members
Who says they did? Seems like they agreed a deal that disadvantaged some non-members. I'd guess many members are in the same situation as you.
scruff9252Free Member
this, if you’re not a member you can’t complain that a union doesn’t act in your interest.
This is a stance I have to disagree with. In what way is it acceptable for the union to actively work to disadvantage non members? Thats the definition of a protection racket; “Pay us money each month or we’ll make sure your shafted”
they're not actively shafting you though, they're acting in the interests of their members. If you were a member and they acted in the interest of non-members over your own you'd be pretty cheesed off.
Was the original offer consolidated,and or made up of bolt on bonus payments to bump up from 8-10.5% ?
they’re not actively shafting you though, they’re acting in the interests of their members. If you were a member and they acted in the interest of non-members over your own you’d be pretty cheesed off.
They're not even acting in the interests of their members though. Some staff will be the same (staying at 8%) and the rest will be worse off. Literally no-one wins / benefits from their actions.
They thought they could do better, but they didn't.
The outcome may not be in the best interest, but the intention probably was.
I know in my days as father of chapel (NUJ) we'd have bitten their arm off for that deal though.
They’re not even acting in the interests of their members though. Some staff will be the same (staying at 8%) and the rest will be worse off. Literally no-one wins / benefits from their actions.
It's unlikely that's the whole story then, either strings attached to the earlier offer or your employer has withdrawn it. If its the latter the union has over played their hand but that's different to actually sabotaging the earlier offer. I doubt you'd have had either offer if there wasn't a union at all.
Sadly seen this too many times, while the Unions have won and done some good things over the years. I’ve also seen people end up a lot worse off as they were convinced something better would be on offer. <br /><br />
Definitely frustrating, but I very much doubt they were deliberately going against your best interests. I’m sure a lot of people at your level were a member of the union, so the union would have had an active interest in getting the best deal for them as well
that said, id question their negotiating capabilities if after 9 months they come away from the table with a no improvement on the offer for any of their members, and a worse deal for some of them!
The unions (of whom I’m not a member but circa 30% of the total workforce are) objected to this, but never made it public what their objections were
They probably gave a decent summary of their object to their subscribers. It's a bit like being a free member here, the experience is so much more limited.
Oh, I see you're a... Er.
Last time (many years ago) I was in a union it was infested with future politicians rather than shop floor types.
Their primary interest was a future in politics rather than benefitting the members. A successful strike, or its opposite, depending on political allegiance could be a major coup.
Not upsetting possible future donors is also important to future politicians.
A cynic might think a union rep with a political science or law degree has higher aims than union delegate.
Follow the money...
They probably gave a decent summary of their object to their subscribers. It’s a bit like being a free member here, the experience is so much more limited.
Oh, I see you’re a… Er.
Again, that doesn't really work when you think it though.
If their objections were reasonable and they said "Accept this and you'll lose all your holidays / this area of the business will have their overtime or call our payments cut" or similar then they would have my, and I expect a lot of my non-union member colleagues joining in support.
The fact they never made a coherent argument as to why the thought the offer was unfair speaks volumes.
Follow the money…
Haha. Being a union rep was a good way to get earmarked for redundancy, in my experience.
The fact they never made a coherent argument as to why the thought the offer was unfair speaks volumes.
How do you know? IME the steward would discuss the offer with members.
Follow the money…
We can't. We don't know who the employer is. Which unions are involved. What sector. Not even which countries.
In the absence of all facts... I'm going with the assumption that the union reps were seeking a better deal for their members... and the time it's taken has put them on the back foot in negotiations as inflation is lower, or things have changed in the sector/market the employer operates in... anything could have happened to make the new deal the best they can now get... we have no idea without details.
As an aside, it did irritate me when non members enjoyed a decent pay rise, having contributed nothing toward achieving it. I've lost pay due to strikes on more than one occasion...
The fact they never made a coherent argument as to why the thought the offer was unfair speaks volumes.
How do you know? IME the steward would discuss the offer with members.
Precisely. When we have union meetings at work, the rep asks first if everyone in attendance is a paid-up member. Once any chancers have ****ed off, the second request is that anything that is discussed is not repeated outside the room.
How do you know? IME the steward would discuss the offer with members.
It would be pretty trivial for the union to put information to non members saying along the lines "the proposals are unfair for x y z reasons. Join us to fight for a better deal"
It would be pretty trivial for the union to put information to non members saying along the lines “the proposals are unfair for x y z reasons. Join us to fight for a better deal”
Yet again. You're not a member they have no duty nor mandate to act for you. Go do your own negotiating not rely on others to do it for you. Try asking for a drink at the local Conservative club without being a member. Oh silly me, you won't be allowed in as you're not a member.
For the first time in 20 years, I’m in an organisation that doesn’t recognise a union for collective bargaining. I was offered a 1% pay rise…
What happened when you went back to your employer with an evidence-backed argument as to why your skills and contribution were worth more than a 1% increase that year?
The fact they never made a coherent argument as to why the thought the offer was unfair speaks volumes.
To what end? So you can influence them as to whether to accept it or not? You're not a member, you have no say.
What happened when you went back to your employer with an evidence-backed argument as to why your skills and contribution were worth more than a 1% increase that year?
I was told it was a take it or leave it offer. I'm working my notice btw, and my new employer recognises trade unions.
What happened when you went back to your employer with an evidence-backed argument as to why your skills and contribution were worth more than a 1% increase that year?
Unless they have a job offer in their hand... why assume the employer would even listen to, never mind consider individual requests?
Anyway, some people can't sell themselves Ben... they shouldn't be paid less because they don't have the required negotiation skills. This is where unions come in. Otherwise it can quickly become "take it or leave"... which isn't good for the employer either.
Looks like management are having the last laugh. Only have to pay another 8% and 70% of staff now mistrust the union!
So, you're confident that with your excellent negotiating skills you'd be able to get a higher pay raise for yourself if you negotiated directly with your HR department??
Over the last couple of years I’ve seen examples of unions actively working against the interest of individual long-standing members.
I love the idea of unions, but felt I had to leave mine as it kept supporting political causes - with no direct or even casual link to my industry - that I do not support. I don’t even recall being consulted.
If you’re lucky and can join a good union, or if you have a good local rep, then they’re great, but there are too many tossers and grifters who make their way up to the top. Just like work really.
Yet again. You’re not a member they have no duty nor mandate to act for you
Again this logic doesn’t hold water. I hen negotiating pay and conditions, the unions only strength is by stating it’s representing x% of the workforce.
If they were to have a reasonable objection to the paydeal and make it known to non members, then they are only going to collect new members and in turn strengthen their negotiating position. I said in my first or second post that was favourable to unions - I like many others could have been easy wins from a recruitment POV.
as it stands through their actions they have only failed their members and non members a like and weakened their bargaining potential for next time.
It would be pretty trivial for the union to put information to non members saying along the lines “the proposals are unfair for x y z reasons. Join us to fight for a better deal”
Frankly from a union's point of view this approach is a much better recruitment tool isn't it?
Engage the non members and secure your future and enhance your power.
Hold their pay review up for nine months, appear to achieve less than was first on offer and risk alienating them.
It's not a good membership sales pitch now...we held things up and got less. Blaming the non members who they didn't engage with isn't going to get them on side for next time... "So I pay my subs to support you after you got a worse deal fo everyone than if you'd stayed out of it".
Edit to add I do think there's a distinct difference between informing/selling the why and objectives vs. inviting engagement in the union's decision making for non members and allowing them to attend member only briefings and meetings.
