|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 15, 2023 12:10:59 GMT
I'm not convinced that banning union membership or the right to strike will actually achieve much - even when they are not on strike their performance is pretty dire. And why might that be? You see, I work in the public sector and practically all of our policy and working practice is dictated by the Home Office. The way it works is: They propose an idiotic policy and hold a faux consultation with staff. We tell them that their proposal will be hugely inefficient, they carry on regardless. Then six months later, when the inevitable slow motion train crash is well underway, they blame us for their idiocy and threaten us with all sorts of dire consequences. Then the unions get involved and tell the Home Office to do one and they blame the unions. This isn't party political btw - both colours of government behave in exactly the same way. It's because almost all politicians are complete idiots. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 15, 2023 12:20:24 GMT
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. it’s not a bad analogy Tax payers don’t pay for union membership. Union membership is ( in the main ) voluntary too. I don’t see your point . To make it analogous, the pedestrians would have to be paying for the fact of a motorist being a motorist - ie paying for their cars. You also want to the motorists (as motorists) to be able to use their position to petition in their interests and against the interests of pedestrians - ie to raise costs on them. This is unfair if pedestrians are compelled to pay. The analogy is imperfect |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 15, 2023 13:13:51 GMT
it’s not a bad analogy Tax payers don’t pay for union membership. Union membership is ( in the main ) voluntary too. I don’t see your point . To make it analogous, the pedestrians would have to be paying for the fact of a motorist being a motorist - ie paying for their cars. You also want to the motorists (as motorists) to be able to use their position to petition in their interests and against the interests of pedestrians - ie to raise costs on them. This is unfair if pedestrians are compelled to pay. The analogy is imperfect Nope.Many motorists contribute to an organisation that helps them if they need rescuing and speaks in their interests . That’s a fact . No one thinks they shouldn’t be allowed because pedestrians do not or that not all motorists contribute . Just like union members . I’ve worked in places that were partly unionised and the non union members benefited. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 15, 2023 13:27:00 GMT
To make it analogous, the pedestrians would have to be paying for the fact of a motorist being a motorist - ie paying for their cars. You also want to the motorists (as motorists) to be able to use their position to petition in their interests and against the interests of pedestrians - ie to raise costs on them. This is unfair if pedestrians are compelled to pay. The analogy is imperfect Nope.Many motorists contribute to an organisation that helps them if they need rescuing and speaks in their interests . Pedestrians don't pay for motorists cars, or pay the same motorist wages that might be used to campaign against pedestrian interests |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 15, 2023 13:50:54 GMT
Nope.Many motorists contribute to an organisation that helps them if they need rescuing and speaks in their interests . Pedestrians don't pay for motorists cars, or pay the same motorist wages that might be used to campaign against pedestrian interests Oh I get it now . You claim that employees should not unionise because employers employers pay them? Are you serious ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2023 14:17:31 GMT
Not as easy or as effectively as union members. Unions use union solicitors . The idea proffered of ‘ if you dont like it then resign’ makes joining a union more compelling, not less. You are ignoring the other side - where are the taxpayer's solicitors, committees and tribunals? You mean the ones government organisations used when taken to court by their unionised staff? They are taxpayer's solicitors, and they could avoid using them by avoiding giving employees legitimate and actionable grievances, instead of coming along and denying them redress. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 15, 2023 14:21:20 GMT
Pedestrians don't pay for motorists cars, or pay the same motorist wages that might be used to campaign against pedestrian interests Oh I get it now . You claim that employees should not unionise because employers employers pay them? Are you serious ? No. I'm claiming that the employees should not unionise if the employer has no choice but to employ them. In this case, the employer is the taxpayer and it's the only case of this nature. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2023 14:32:06 GMT
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. Which fact you are abusing by posting extremist and anti-democratic nonsense that the vast majority of people will never accept anyway making it a total non starter. And you claim your proposals to ban unions and disenfranchise millions of working people are "modest." Under the circumstances peoples' responses to you have been very restrained, measured, and intelligent. Clearly in this part of the forum even extremist ideas have to be debated reasonably. But it is not unreasonable to call out such extremist ideas for what they are. Because any proposal to disenfranchise a huge chunk of the electorate is an assault on democracy itself. And it is perfectly intelligent and reasonable and logical to say so. No one has sworn at you. No one has called you bad names. If we have attacked anything as being daft or silly or extremist or whatever it is the ideas themselves and not you personally. Everyone is capable of coming up with daft ideas from time to time, including me. But if such ideas are found to be wanting and logically shown to be a bit silly or dangerous by others, that is par for the course too and a reasonable and intelligent response. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2023 14:43:12 GMT
Oh I get it now . You claim that employees should not unionise because employers employers pay them? Are you serious ? No. I'm claiming that the employees should not unionise if the employer has no choice but to employ them. In this case, the employer is the taxpayer and it's the only case of this nature. The employer always has a choice whether to employ this or that person. Yes, if a position has to be filled, the employer has to employ someone to fill it but he or she will often have a range of potential candidates to choose from. And all that remains true regardless of whether that employer is the national government, local government, or a private enterprise. And regardless of the nature of the employer, workers should have the right to protect themselves against harassment, bullying or whatever. Because when it comes to the state, it acts as an employer on our behalf, we do not directly oversee such employees ourselves. And if we did employ anyone directly ourselves, they would still have the right not to be treated badly by us. Abolishing unions for all state employees so that the government can treat them as badly as they like in our name is unacceptable. And wanting to take away their voting rights too is an affront to democracy itself. It is hard not to see the motivations behind this idea as being anything other than both vindictive and politically motivated.. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 15, 2023 14:58:06 GMT
Oh I get it now . You claim that employees should not unionise because employers employers pay them? Are you serious ? No. I'm claiming that the employees should not unionise if the employer has no choice but to employ them. In this case, the employer is the taxpayer and it's the only case of this nature. But you don’t have a rational argument support this . What if the employee joins a union the day or year after joining the company ? Why should any employer deny its workers the right to independent representation ? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 15, 2023 14:59:40 GMT
No. I'm claiming that the employees should not unionise if the employer has no choice but to employ them. In this case, the employer is the taxpayer and it's the only case of this nature. The employer always has a choice whether to employ this or that person. Normally yes, but not in the public sector. In the public sector the situation managed by the public sector and the paying employer (the taxpayer) has no way (veto) to protect himself against any 'deal' thus created. The arrangement is intrinsically abusive. There should be balancing restriction on employees to compensate for the legal compulsion of their employer to carry on paying whether he wants to or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 15, 2023 15:04:25 GMT
Why should any employer deny its workers the right to independent representation ? One legitimate reason might be that he is legally compelled to employ them whether he wants to or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 15, 2023 15:06:24 GMT
Why should any employer deny its workers the right to independent representation ? One legitimate reason might be that he is legally compelled to employ them whether he wants to or not. Workers Independent representation doesn’t pose a risk to an employer . |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 15, 2023 15:14:28 GMT
One legitimate reason might be that he is legally compelled to employ them whether he wants to or not. Workers Independent representation doesn’t pose a risk to an employer . Of course it does. If I'm legally obliged to employ you and you are left free to increase my liabilities to you, how do I avoid this? By doing what you say? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 15, 2023 15:18:51 GMT
Workers Independent representation doesn’t pose a risk to an employer . Of course it does. If I'm legally obliged to employ you and you are left free to increase my liabilities to you, how do I avoid this? By doing what you say? Independent representation is simply that . It doesn’t increase liabilities . It reinforces existing ones . Collective bargaining is only a part of it. |
|
