I wouldn't mind if it was true but I can't stand the cunts. You won't meet a more socially liberal person than myself and that sits higher than my centre right libertarian economic views. I couldn't vote a government that is big or little c conservative, not unless there are serious changes.mackenzie said:SWP's back said:Read the fucking thread then or any other communication between wired and myself. If he manages to enter a thread without the pejorative and erroneous use of the word "Tory" towards me then I may enter into a more tailed dialogue.mackenzie said:Why get personal?
You know nothing of the motivation behind the post.
I can understand your reaction to the heinous 'Tory' accusation, I really can ;-)
metalblue said:union city blue said:metalblue said:Genuine question for our union rep guys (or former ones). If I have a complaint and I take to my rep does he/she get to decide if my employers have a case to answer or does he/she have to push it to someone else to decide?
Most local reps should be trained to a level where they know the basics around employment law and about the employers procedures eg discipline/grievance. If they can't answer the would go to the branch secretary or similar for advice on what to do with a particular case. On cases that may require legal proceedings the case would be referred to the union's legal advisers who would advise on the legal aspects of the case and whether the case would stand a reasonable chance of success in court or tribunal.
There may be occasions when a union would not support a member pursuing a particular case if it was felt that they did not have merit or had no reasonable chance of succeeding. In most cases where a member is turned down in terms of ongoing support by their union, most unions have an internal appeal/complaints procedure where the member could appeal against the decision not to support a case.
Hope that answered your question.
Thanks for that, and also thanks Maccy and LS. The reason for my question was I was trying to work out if the union is "only" as effective as its rep or not, is there some sort of regional monitoring of the reps (they have to report everything brought to their attention etc)? I've no issue with reps joining "the other side" at a later point but if it was always their intention to do so you'd be forgiven for questioning if they always acted in members interests, conversely the same question could be asked of those that wanted to climb the union ladder - obviously there are great reps and no doubt they make up the majority but the subs ain't cheap (mrs MB just paid £220ish for hers) and members always deserve to get the support they pay for.
BoyBlue_1985 said:Yes just like there are some good and honest company owners, just because they have workers to earn them profit doesnt make them a boogeyman. I know bosses that have taken jobs that make no profit to keep people employedThe cookie monster said:BoyBlue_1985 said:So are people telling me there are no bent union reps??
I should imagine there are..
And there will be some very good and honest ones too.
When i was let go by my boss in 2008 he was more devestated than me, he made my CV and sent it out to all local companies to get me a job.
mackenzie said:hilts said:totallywired said:Sorry the tories killed off the manufacturing base of the country.
not helped by some workers striking and others manufacturing inferior products people didnt want to buy, its not a black and white subject im afraid, just blaming thatcher is for simpletons
There was a factory in my town that manufactured goods for Marks and Sparks. They didn't go under because of inferior goods (far from it) they went under because M and S decided to give the contract to cheap slave labour overseas.
Well done Thatchet.
union city blue said:metalblue said:union city blue said:Most local reps should be trained to a level where they know the basics around employment law and about the employers procedures eg discipline/grievance. If they can't answer the would go to the branch secretary or similar for advice on what to do with a particular case. On cases that may require legal proceedings the case would be referred to the union's legal advisers who would advise on the legal aspects of the case and whether the case would stand a reasonable chance of success in court or tribunal.
There may be occasions when a union would not support a member pursuing a particular case if it was felt that they did not have merit or had no reasonable chance of succeeding. In most cases where a member is turned down in terms of ongoing support by their union, most unions have an internal appeal/complaints procedure where the member could appeal against the decision not to support a case.
Hope that answered your question.
Thanks for that, and also thanks Maccy and LS. The reason for my question was I was trying to work out if the union is "only" as effective as its rep or not, is there some sort of regional monitoring of the reps (they have to report everything brought to their attention etc)? I've no issue with reps joining "the other side" at a later point but if it was always their intention to do so you'd be forgiven for questioning if they always acted in members interests, conversely the same question could be asked of those that wanted to climb the union ladder - obviously there are great reps and no doubt they make up the majority but the subs ain't cheap (mrs MB just paid £220ish for hers) and members always deserve to get the support they pay for.
Most positions in trade unions are subject to annual election by the members they represent. If your rep is ineffective or you think they are in management's pocket with one eye on their future career prospects then there is nothing to stop the members electing a new steward.
SWP's back said:I wouldn't mind if it was true but I can't stand the cunts. You won't meet a more socially liberal person than myself and that sits higher than my centre right libertarian economic views. I couldn't vote a government that is big or little c conservative, not unless there are serious changes.mackenzie said:SWP's back said:Read the fucking thread then or any other communication between wired and myself. If he manages to enter a thread without the pejorative and erroneous use of the word "Tory" towards me then I may enter into a more tailed dialogue.
I can understand your reaction to the heinous 'Tory' accusation, I really can ;-)
hilts said:mackenzie said:hilts said:not helped by some workers striking and others manufacturing inferior products people didnt want to buy, its not a black and white subject im afraid, just blaming thatcher is for simpletons
There was a factory in my town that manufactured goods for Marks and Sparks. They didn't go under because of inferior goods (far from it) they went under because M and S decided to give the contract to cheap slave labour overseas.
Well done Thatchet.
so your blaming thatcher for a decision by M and S and the low wages in asia?
BoyBlue_1985 said:union city blue said:metalblue said:Thanks for that, and also thanks Maccy and LS. The reason for my question was I was trying to work out if the union is "only" as effective as its rep or not, is there some sort of regional monitoring of the reps (they have to report everything brought to their attention etc)? I've no issue with reps joining "the other side" at a later point but if it was always their intention to do so you'd be forgiven for questioning if they always acted in members interests, conversely the same question could be asked of those that wanted to climb the union ladder - obviously there are great reps and no doubt they make up the majority but the subs ain't cheap (mrs MB just paid £220ish for hers) and members always deserve to get the support they pay for.
Most positions in trade unions are subject to annual election by the members they represent. If your rep is ineffective or you think they are in management's pocket with one eye on their future career prospects then there is nothing to stop the members electing a new steward.
What happened with bob **** then. This man sorts himself out no matter what
BoyBlue_1985 said:union city blue said:metalblue said:Thanks for that, and also thanks Maccy and LS. The reason for my question was I was trying to work out if the union is "only" as effective as its rep or not, is there some sort of regional monitoring of the reps (they have to report everything brought to their attention etc)? I've no issue with reps joining "the other side" at a later point but if it was always their intention to do so you'd be forgiven for questioning if they always acted in members interests, conversely the same question could be asked of those that wanted to climb the union ladder - obviously there are great reps and no doubt they make up the majority but the subs ain't cheap (mrs MB just paid £220ish for hers) and members always deserve to get the support they pay for.
Most positions in trade unions are subject to annual election by the members they represent. If your rep is ineffective or you think they are in management's pocket with one eye on their future career prospects then there is nothing to stop the members electing a new steward.
What happened with bob crow then. This man sorts himself out no matter what
union city blue said:BoyBlue_1985 said:union city blue said:Most positions in trade unions are subject to annual election by the members they represent. If your rep is ineffective or you think they are in management's pocket with one eye on their future career prospects then there is nothing to stop the members electing a new steward.
What happened with bob crow then. This man sorts himself out no matter what
Like all trade union general secretaries, Bob Crow is subject to regular election by law. You might not like him but his members keep electing him so he must be doing something right. When he was first elected he polled nearly twice the votes of the other candidates put together.