English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

8 answers

Nothing. They are outdated and do nothing but keep unqualified workers employed and add extra costs to everyone.

2006-12-09 23:48:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

There are indeed benefits to both employers and employees in having trade unions. The primary benefit for employers is that of collective bargaining. Contracts of employment are individual. This means that an employer who does not recognise or encourage a trade union, has to negotiate individually. Can you imagine how time consuming and expensive that would be for a large employer with thousands of workers? With a recognised trade unon all negotiations can legally be conducted collectively.

There are other benefits to employers where there is an active and capable trade union branch in the workplace. Although there are occassional high profile cases in the courts, in many employers avoid being prosecuted because they have robust negotiating arrangements with their unions. It is often the case that employers resolve many disputes out of the public eye and with little impact on the business being conducted.

For employees there are the odd benefits like cheaper insurance or holidays and such like, the principle benefit however is power by association. There are all sorts of pressure groups in society, the CBI, all the political parties, the GMC....why people imagine that it is any different or distasteful for working people to organise in their own pressure group...is beyond me. The only reason for this kind of blind bigotry is because these people have little or no idea what a trade union actually is or what they do.

If you are not in a trade union, the chances are you only get to negotiate with your immediate manager...if that. As a member of a one and a half million strong union, our negotiations go all the way up to and including the prime minister.

As one of my colleagues said...'those who don'y bother to join or criticise the unions deserve everything they don't get'.

I should also add that the notion that unions no longer have any power is founded in ignorance. Employment and labour law is a legal speciality of its own and there is a great deal of legal authority that unions still carry.

2006-12-10 00:20:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The same as the benefits in the 20th Century. Whilst the unions are seen in a particularly dim light by the general public (particularly during strike time), given the opportunity an employer will pay the smallest amount possible to their staff, and remove any and all benefits. Trade unions are there for the purpose of ensuring that this cannot and does not happen.

Membership is minimal (I pay £13 a month, which is about an hours pay) and for that I have medical cover, legal assistance cover, and numerous other entitlements and schemes I could enter, plus of course cover from the union themselves. In one year of employment I've had reason to seek their help once already, with something that was deemed unfair.

Whilst I can understand the public's frustration with the unions (especially their decision to strike around public holidays etc), from an employees point of view, membership is essential.

2006-12-09 23:54:07 · answer #3 · answered by ashypoo 5 · 2 0

The same as they always were. Collective bargaining power, protection against victimisation, representation in disputes with your employer, Health and Safety.
Most of the right we have as employees would not have come about without trade unions. Employees in workplaces with active trade unions have much better working conditions than those with out trade unions.

2006-12-10 00:12:35 · answer #4 · answered by leekier 4 · 2 0

Every benefit - they will represent you in court for nothing, they own holiday homes which you can go to for little money (mine has one in Croyde Bay, Devon) and they battle on your behalf to stop employers s****** over employees and lots more.

100 years ago when there were no unions, you had to take your own coal to the office, there was no H&S legislation, you could be sacked or laid off on a whim and the working week was 48 hours minimum. My first job was 48 hours a week and now I work 37.5 because of unions. Don't dis them - join tehm!

2006-12-10 00:53:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

commerce unionism with a social experience of right and incorrect is mandatory extra beneficial than ever. We do get extremely romantic recommendations of the Noble Savage, the Salt of the Earth etc, while they may be as conniving as unfavorable as any self-serving crooks of the deregulated mafia. mutually as Thatcher and her successors endeavoured to get rid of the scourge of unprincipled commerce unionism from the lesser grades, unfortunately we see all too for sure how the worst of the excesses have emerged interior the renumeration committees for executives and suitable professionals mutually with bankers, footballers, celebrities and attorneys, and the expenses workplace on the domicile of Commons below Michael Martin. If what they are doing isn't collective bargaining, i don't understand what's. merely as a real patriot swears an oath of loyalty to the Queen, and by employing implication, the Queen's u . s ., commonwealth and the society she reigns over, so too could a commerce unionist's lifeblood be a willingness to do the ideal for the country, for society and for the agency. In return for such loyalty could come a residing salary, good situations, safety of employment, and mutual goodwill. apart from, that's no solid merely an elite of commerce unionists lording it with their bonuses, mutually as there are others denied a residing in any respect. If fairness is expected, then fairness could settle for out too. perhaps integrity and robust character on the two sides has fallen out of favour with the Estuary-speaking flow-grabbing Thatcherite loutperson? somebody desires to repair it, and if agency won't do it, and government won't be able to, then possibly commerce unions furnish the ideal desire for us?

2016-12-30 05:22:09 · answer #6 · answered by levatt 3 · 0 0

Absolutely none - the Tories saw to that, courtesy of everyones favourite mentalist Thatcher, she made it virtually impossible for unions to take action against employers with a whole raft of draconian legislation.

Thanks Thatch you old witch, way to go to help create an environment where employees are constantly looking over their shoulder to see what they're being screwed over with next.

2006-12-09 23:55:52 · answer #7 · answered by thecoldvoiceofreason 6 · 0 0

well if your a nurse, doctor or other health professional being a member of one of the relevant trade unions, namely the rcn or unison for nurses, they offer insurance against patients or relitives taking you to court in malpractice cases. i knowe the rcn insures me for atleast £1,000,000 just in case something like that happens

2006-12-09 23:57:21 · answer #8 · answered by Andy S 2 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers