Rate this!
John Robertson
Member - 16 posts
"Information about trades unons"? - there hardly is any. They don't send accounts to members, the accounts they lodge with the government don't look plausible, and finding a paid member of staff to help is like winning the lottery (unless they get a referral fee by sending you to a no-win no fee lawyer).
This gives employers a moral responsibility that's controversial: recommend a scam to your employees to give them a false sense of security, or try to find a good union? Whatever employers do, others will think there's a conflict of interest and not trust their advice, so employers are stuck.
Rate this!
Craig Stuart
Member - 98 posts
I beg to differ John. There is plenty of information about trade unions, particularly on the internet. We DO send accounts to members (each year in the Financial Report) and I don't quite understand what you mean about accounts that 'don't look plausible'.
I'm a paid member of union staff and I help members everyday (my remit is Education and Health and Safety) and I would like to think that the assistance I give is well received and appreciated.
What criteria you use John for deciding whether a union is 'good' or not, I'm not sure but whilst admitting we don't always get it right and we're far from perfect, we DO work hard for better representation, education, training and safe working practices for all our members.
I fully support this move by the government - it's about time that workers were given information on their rights at work.
Rate this!
John Robertson
Member - 16 posts
Hi Craig
I'm glad your union sends a financial report to members - my Unite TG section leaves members to discover the Certification Office and look there, where a set of accounts shows remarkably small amounts paid to lawyers, but a re-assuringly large amount paid as "services to members" more generally. However, thinking of national politics, Mr Dromey of the T and G told reporters that he wasn't aware of large amounts of soft loans to the labour party in 2005 so detail would be re-assuring and I read somewhere that there were only 400 staff pre merger for all 750,000 working members which seems a low staff ratio. Certainly my full time official was too busy to deal with disciplinary meetings and dismissals when volunteer reps asked for his help.
There's another odd thing about Unite T and G section. A report by Stoy Hayward accountants for the Amicus Executive, pre merger, noted that T and G charge laywers for referring members to them rather than paying laywers to represent members, which is something I'd like to know more about as it suggests that the union generally meets my personal experience - a claims management agency with volunteer co-ordinators and PR, charging "from eleven pounds a month" according to its averts.
If Unite T and G were particularly bad, there wouldn't be a problem: people could just change unions, but the experience of skinflint service is not unique, even on this message board, and if the service were good, unions would surely make their paid-for services clear in contracts. Mine has a rule book which says that there is a "schedule II" listing services to members, but there isn't a schedule II. And the new rule book, being introduced towards the end of the year, isn't clear either.
I'm glad your union does better than mine and hope they all get better.
John
PS I promise not to go on-and-on but if you want references or can offer any I'll reply
Rate this!
Craig Stuart
Member - 98 posts
Good comments there John and I wouldn't disagree with a lot of what you say.
The future does not look at all bright and as the days go by, it looks more and more likely that we're going to have a change of government soon. Tories are renowned for their dislike of trade unions and we can expect attack after attack on employment rights etc. People have such short memories and the scheme mentined in the article, and many others like it, will be scrapped.
It will be interesting to see what the trade union movement response will be to this. I certainly hope it isn't one of 'forced' compliance.
Rate this!
John Robertson
Member - 16 posts
I'm not worried about what they do in the first five years - it's in the last term of office that governments redouble all their mistakes to appeal to core supporters, just as the government is trying to reorganise the health service a hundredth time now to look as though it's doing something.
I'm puzzled by some of the campaign to repeal the anti-trades-union laws. Some of the people who march in support are the very same activists who refused me access to accounts, refused to use their local budget to help when the regional office's legal service had ceased to function, and spent much time and effort "donating-on-behalf" in their words or stealing in mine. Some of the laws they dislike seem perfectly reasonable except that they were written pre-internet and so insist on expensive electoral reform services / industrial society ballots, and ministers can add to the list of allowed balloting organisations with a stroke of a pen anyway. If a political party wanted unions to hold proper elections I'd be quite interested, but I suppose no party wants to open the issue of why we don't get votes at work so the idea would be slow to come to the surface.
I'm rambling though....
John
PS Good luck with your job. I wish some union officials would set up a decent transparent union to replace the ones we've got
0 (0)
