Public sector reform - two modest proposals to make a start

Millions of people in the UK work for an employer and have no union affiliation - and yet they are still able to get information about their rights and responsibilities.



They will be using taxpayer monies to take the taxpayer to kangaroo court. My view is that, if there is something about the employment arrangement they don't like, they can either resign or raise it with their MP

Unionists are politicians so we need to **** *** of these useless people off and make them work productively. The simple point stands. If you don't like the job then don't do it.


Edited by Moderator for bad language

The problem with this is that any potential government could undermine the latter without restoring the former. Restrictions on the right for some to strike is a reasonable enough thing to discuss and debate but I would go no further than that.

You see, unions don't just exist to organise strikes when supported by their members. This is what makes the news when they do strike but they serve much more positive roles than that in the workplace. For one thing if an employee has a legitimate grievance regarding bullying, harassment, unfair dismissal or anything at all of that nature, a union will support that employee through the tribunal process and fund any legal costs. The fact that employers and managers know this itself deters a lot of bad behaviour from happening. My own union - USDAW - has never to my knowledge organised any kind of strike in my adult lifetime and I am already 58. It certainly hasnt during the 11 years I have been a member of it. Yet it has been great at supporting workers through grievance processes and resolving issues. We know the union has our back if we are treated unreasonably. Employers know this too and are far less likely to risk treating us unreasonably in the first place. Unions thus serve a positive role in any workplace, most of which goes unreported. 

Banning unions would be a retrograde step. And the other proposal to disenfranchise all public sector workers is fundamentally undemocratic and a shade vindictive. After all if we all start going around calling for the disenfranchisement of groups who might not vote the way we want them to, where would it end. The left disenfranchising pensioners because of their tendency to vote Tory? The right disenfranchising students because of their tendency to vote left? Property qualifications so that only home owners can vote? IQ tests? If we seriously consider disenfranchising anyone we open a pandoras box that could be the death knell for our democracy.

Yes there are some on this forum whom I wouldn't trust to vote intelligently and sensibly. But I would defend to the death their right to have a vote in spite of that. Because denying it to anyone is a stab at the heart of the very principle of democracy itself.

I have worked for employers in nonunionised workplaces, and bad employers have in my time exploited that fact to treat people badly. If I were not a member of the union now and I had a legitimate grievance, I would have no legal advice unless I could afford it myself, and would have to fund any court costs myself. This is unaffordable for many and would be for me. But as a union member I know that the union would use union solicitors to fight my corner and give me any legal advice I might need. And would pay for it out of union funds. It is one of the things USDAW members pay their subs for.

Unions are a force for good in the workplace and we should be encouraging the extension of union rights to more workplaces, rather than trying to restrict them for those who already have them.

Posters are reminded that this thread is in Mind Zone, and so they should try to keep their language limited in tone to what might be expected from an elderly librarian. Use the "J.R. Hartley" advert as a reference. Posters who have not seen the advert should view it to familiarise themselves fully with the template.

How is that relevant?
Do you deny a motorist membership of the RAC because pedestrians don’t have breakdown service ?

There is no similar need for symmetry there because the Pedestrians are not paying for the motorists RAC membership.

If they were and the motorists could organise and petition against the interests of the pedestrians, you would expect to pedestrians to be similarly empowered.

Unfortunately, this all very bad analogy.

My point is that the current arrangement has compulsion on only one side of a relationship involving wealth transfer - and, to balance the situation to fairness, discretion should be removed from the other party.