Why does everyone in here believe that ....?

Question

....being a member of a Trade Union will answer all their employment problems?

I don't understand!
Everytime there is a question relating to employment, there is at least one answer to suggest that being a member of a Trade Union will solve all their problems....despite there being increasing levels of Employment law to protect the employee in the workforce.

I understand that there are some rogue employers out there...but why not just simply as the Personnel or HR Department! They can't just make a mockery of employees for the fun of it!

It makes me made that there is such an "us v them" attitude out there between employers and employees....

What do you think?

I'm genuinely interested to hear both arguments here!

ok, not "everyone" - but a lot of people!

And, thank you for your answers so far! They make interesting reading.

Tuffy Porcupine....thanks for your comments....I would like to make a response to your comments though......Its in the HR deptartments best interests to ensure the Company is promotes itself as an employer of choice and morale is kept high and so pushing for increased money/competitive salaries is a must for any HR Dept. A good HR dept wont need to challenge its own decisions as they will make transparent, consistent and fair decisions. HR Depts (by law as part of 3 step statutory discipline and dismissal procedures) to inform employees of their right of appeal in writing and have a disciplinary policy and procedure. I'm interested to hear a reply from you...

Answer 1

I don't think anyone has implied that being a member of a trade union will be the answer to everyone's problems, but I still think it is vitally important to join one.
In most if not all instances a trade union representative would assume that a member has tried to address a problem with their line manager or their HR department before a problem is brought to them. It is problems that are not addressed in this way that unions need to become involved.
You are right to say that there is a lot of employment law to protect employees (and Libby is correct to say that it is often unions that are the initiators of such laws through their political campaigns), but being aware of it, interpreting it and addressing it is the key issue. In my experience HR managers interpret laws very differently from union secretaries and the HR managers that I have worked for have been considerably less knowledgeable about certain aspects of employment law than union officials (which is understandable - it is not the sole focus of an HR manager's job). So, the idea that we should all rely on HR departments to defend and uphold our rights is utterly ludicrous. An HR department's main responsibility is to it's own company.
Can you see an HR department pushing for a higher pay award for it's staff?
Can you see an HR department challenging it's own decision to discipline or dismiss a member of staff?
Can you imagine an HR department volunteering information to a member of staff about their right to challenge one of it's own decisions?
Can you imagine an HR department informing their staff of rights which would make it's own job more difficult (e.g. flexible working)?
Make no mistake, however benign and helpful an HR department may seem, if it comes to the crunch and the interests of a member of staff conflicts with the interest of the company, the member of staff will be hung out to dry! (And I include in this - from very recent experience - members of the HR team!)
In addition to this I feel there is a moral obligation to a member of a union in that all employees benefit from their existence - mainly in relation to pay increments.
I also get irritated by the number of people referring people to:
1.) Citizen's Advice Bureau - excellent institution though they are (I have been a volunteer) - they are mainly staffed by amateurs and are highly unlikely to have the experience of unions (who have links to expert barristers).
2.) ACAS - advice agency only - no personal representation.
3.) Independent "employment law experts" and solicitors for whom you have to pay through the nose and again have a tiny proportion of the expertise and resouces of a union.

I agree with your comment that it is unhealthy for their to be an "us v them" culture in an organisation, but this usually exists where there is a poor union/management relationship or there is an imbalance in power. The best situation is one where there is mutual respect - which I think all good unions aim to achieve.

My advice to you is simple and is based on years of experience as a union steward. Treat union membership (if the moral obligation argument doesn't sway you) as an insurance policy. Hope you never have to rely on it on an individual basis - but take assurance from the fact that it is there if you need it. Too many people in my experience assume that they do not need to be a member of a union, that they can deal with things for themselves if the need arises or that they will never have the need. The vast majority of issues that I read on this section of the site would most easily be addressed if the person had the person been a member of a union. The thing is, for too many non-members, the point at which they recognise this is too late - unions do not deal with pre-existing cases for new applicants. So, if you haven't already done so - join a union!

Regarding your additional point - I think the problem is that what an HR Department may feel is a "transparent, consistent and fair decision" might not necessarily be viewed as such by an employee or a union. Your definition of a competitive salary will be - "Is what we are paying comparative to what our competitors are paying?" A union's would be - "Is the salary a fair one for the job that is being done and in comparison with inflation?"
The best way of ensuring that decisions are such is to have the option of having them challenged effectively. I make the point again, an HR Department's main loyalty is to the company. There are often cases where the welfare of a company may conflict with the welfare of an individual employee. In such cases an HR Department (quite rightly, given their role) will give precedence to the company's welfare. A union (again, rightly given that they are protecting the rights of workers) will protect the individual's welfare. In situations where both sides have a good working relationship and there is a good balance of power, the a reasonable compromise may be reached, or in some cases it is necessary to proceed through courts - in some cases the company may be in the right, in some cases the union will. But I feel it is essential for all employers to be aware that they are making decisions on the understanding that they will be effectively challenged if they are not liked.
An analogy would be - in an ideal world we would need no police force - but we don't live in an ideal world.

The answer of 'son of shop steward' (below) gives you a good insight why the American labour laws are atrociously biased towards the employer. Whenever you have a US respondant on this section of the site it is always along the lines of - 'there's nothing you can do'. The Americans are still so hung-up about "Commies" and "Pinkos" that their labour movement is as spineless as an earthworm.
Recall a UK union rep telling me recently when negotiating with US management team based in the UK that there answer to him was "We don't do unions!" - that obviously went down OK in the US - thankfully the answer to this jumped up cowboy was -"You do here mate!"

Answer 2

Do you know why your GMC truck costs about $30,000?
Because they have the UAW in there making them pay someone $35 an hour to turn a wrench now and then. Believe me, I know a number of people that work there and outside of GM and the UAW they would be lucky to serve a super size fry every once and a while.

They have now negotiated themselves into a corner. Their employees are making so much money that the US manufacturers are losing money left and right. Ford just posted the first profit this quarter in the past two years.

Yes, having a union stand behind you when the chips are down is nice. You know what is nicer? Having your own personal experience and education to stand behind you. If my company went under or laid me off, I would have another job within a few months. I have not relied on a friend to "Get me the job" and then sat back and rode it out.

Good luck and watch out for the union label, it will cost you more!

Answer 3

"Everyone" does not believe that trade unions will solve all of their employer problems. Some of us believe that trade unions have outlived their usefulness, for the reasons you stated. There are laws and regulations that protect most employees in the workplace. Additionally, the demand for QUALITY workers is so high that companies that do not treat their employees well will ultimately lose them to companies that do.

Some people have had their unions do well by them. People who enjoy and appreciate a union should be able to be a member of one. People who don't like unions should not be required to be a member. The marketplace will equalize employment problems, but it can take a while.

There are plenty of anecdotal stories of good things and bad things that unions do. I am personally not a member of a union, and I do not need the services of one to succeed in my employment. Your mileage may vary!

Answer 4

Look on the USDAWs website and you will see why. The laws that come into force to protect employees are usually campaingned for by the union. The union will also fight a case for an employer who might otherwise not stand a chance against a big employer. And believe me, employers regularly flout as many laws as they can get away with.

Answer 5

My partner, a black engineer, was made redundant from his job in 2000. Prior to this he suffered years of low level racial discrimination. Two white colleagues, doing exactly the same job, retained their jobs. Amicus, the Trade Union, helped him to take his employers to an industrial tribunal. They paid for a top London Barrister to represent him. After a lengthy case, in which my partner and I had to listen to some terrible things, he won his case and a substantial lump sum payment. Without the union, my partner could not have taken on this large multinational business. He was vindicated and made to feel that he did actually count for something and that his racist managers were exposed as such.

Answer 6

Have you watched the Wal-Mart docu-film ? it is called 'The high price of low cost', if any employees need a union it is the associates of Wal-Mart, they treat the employee's like animals, they won't allow their workers to form a union because they won't be able to get away with the way they treat their people if they do, may be not every place needs a Union but they do serve a purpose when they are used properly.

Answer 7

Trade Unions , Yes they are still about , but they don't have the bottle they used to. Something to do with being beaten my the Govenment in the days of Mrs T.

Answer 8

if there were no unions to fight for the working man /woman then the employers would just run riot over us

Answer 9

The UNION ha ha ha... The only one who can help, is yourself during a work related problem. And pretending that you have a Solicitor who will back you up... Believe me.

Answer 10

Why does everyone believe that? I don`t believe it, (there is always at least one answer, I don`t know what you`re haverin
about, please quote me some of these increased levels of law you`re babbling about.