Strike

[Matty]

Not true.

The right to strike has nothing whatsoever with bing in a union.

Everyone has it.

And the law states that a company cannot take action aginst individual stikers.

It has to treat them all the same, whether thay are members of a union or not.

A company can sack all strikers or none at all, it cannot pick and choose.

Striking is a sackable offence whether you are in a union or not, but in most cases companies choose not to sack any strikers because by law they'd have to sack them all and that'd damage the company.


However, if you choose to hold a one man strike all on your own the company will probably sack you whether you are the member of a union or not. So before you do it make sure you are indispensable.

Taken directly from the PCS (Public and Commercial Services) Union Website, in the "Frequently asked Questions about the Strike" section:-

QUESTION I'm not a union member, but I support the action. Can I take part?

ANSWER Unfortunately not. Management could take action against you for unauthorised absence, and as you are not a member, we wouldn’t be able to help you.

But you can still join now and take part. Then you would be protected – and we can help you with future employment problems.

It seems the Unions themselves disagree with you.

No they don't. What they say is perfectly true. Striking is a form of unauthorised absence. The company can take action against strikers, but obviously the PCS wll only help its members. But as the union wants you as a member it neglects to mention that it is illegal to treat strikers differently, union members or not.

It's just clever wording aimed at getting you to worry and join up.

I'd advise everyone to join a union. Membership does not give you any more protection when it comes to striking, but if anything else goes wrong at work it certainly will help to have the union to back you up.

Simplified, the above says "can I take part?" and the response is "Unfortunately not".

What you're saying is that the response really means "Yes, but at your own risk, as we can't defend you from any action taken against you by the company". Unfortunately not is, therefore, simply not true.

 

[pominoz]

The ending of "closed shops" is one of the worst things that we let happen, imo.

When i first started working in construction here in Aus, it was a "No ticket, No start" policy, every worker on site was and had to be a union member. As a result we were among the best paid "workers" in Aus.

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop</a>
"All forms of closed shops in the UK are strictly illegal under section 137(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52)[4] passed by the Conservative government at the time. The Labour Party, then in opposition, had supported closed shops until December 1989, when it abandoned the policy in accordance with European legislation".

 

[tidyman]

There's some right old stuff and nonsense on here now. I'm not going to start quoting multiple posts but a few points.

Nobody wants to strike. Everybody would prefer issues to be resolved by arbitration. But if that isn't possible then the ultimate threat must exist to withdraw labour or nothing would ever be solved by arbitration.

Whether a non union strike breaker should be classed as a scab is a matter of opinion but I wouldn't waste any time arguing over it. There is no difference. If you break a strike, you are a certain type of person and the technicalities of whether you are an official scab or not is neither here nor there.

This idea that a union wanting staff of the same grades to be on different rates of pay is also hyperthetical nonsense. The union negotiates for all staff. Members and non members. Anyone who's lack of principles enables them to work during a strike, isn't going to worry about reaping benefits for something they haven't contributed towards achieving. And the company wouldn't allow it in any case. This is why I believe a closed shop should still be in operation. Not that that is ever going to happen again though.

The argument over the percentage of people who voted for action is another damp squid. It's also something certain members of the government are taking advice on whether they can get away with enforcing on union ballots. As someone has pointed out, they wouldn't even be in a postion to be making decisions on anything if the same rules applied to them. I'm not aware of any democratic election, anywhere where a majority of those eligible to vote is needed as opposed to a majority who actually do vote. It's laughable that people are justifying their strike breaking on this. If enough of them had bothered their arses voting against something they disagree with in the first place then there would have been no strike. Although I suppose they think, why bother, when they just ignore the result of the ballot if they don't like it anyway.

If people want to break strikes, they will. No amount of words will convince them they are in the wrong. I suspect most of them know they are really. I just wish they would at least have the decency to not insult the people who are fighting on their behalf by keeping quiet by not trying to justify their actions.

 

[Matty]

This idea that a union wanting staff of the same grades to be on different rates of pay is also hyperthetical nonsense. The union negotiates for all staff. Members and non members.

This isn't always strictly true, it depends upon the structure/makeup of your "staff".

I was outsourced, under TUPE rules, to my employer along with a group of others, some were union members, some were not. We have our T&C's from our old employer. Employees of the company we joined have different T&C's. We (the staff that were TUPEd over) are in what is called a Collective Bargaining Unit, or CBU. The union negotiates for ALL staff in the CBU (union and non-union members) but not for those staff who did not TUPE over. As such we get different pay rises to them, different pension schemes etc. Non-CBU employees can join the CBU (after 1 year of working at our site) but their joining has to be agreed by the union, and one of their rules on joining the CBU is you MUST also join the union. If you were already in the CBU, but not a union member, then they can't force you to join te union, or throw you out of the CBU.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

The ending of "closed shops" is one of the worst things that we let happen, imo.

When i first started working in construction here in Aus, it was a "No ticket, No start" policy, every worker on site was and had to be a union member. As a result we were among the best paid "workers" in Aus.

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop</a>
"All forms of closed shops in the UK are strictly illegal under section 137(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52)[4] passed by the Conservative government at the time. The Labour Party, then in opposition, had supported closed shops until December 1989, when it abandoned the policy in accordance with European legislation".

Im thinking that would surely come under the workers discrimination laws these days

 

[urmston]

What you're saying is that the response really means "Yes, but at your own risk, as we can't defend you from any action taken against you by the company". Unfortunately not is, therefore, simply not true.

Take a look here.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.catererandhotelkeeper.co.uk/articles/31/7/2009/328981/you-cant-just-sack-the-strikers.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.catererandhotelkeeper.co.uk/ ... rikers.htm</a>


Where a union has called a strike following a successful ballot of its members, unfair dismissal protection extends not only to members of the union, but to all employees who participate in the action, despite the fact that non-union members do not have an entitlement to vote in the ballot.

 

[pominoz]

Top post, tidyman.

BB_1985, They can put it under any name they like, it is still "divide and conquer", and we let the fuckers do it. :(

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Top post, tidyman.

BB_1985, They can put it under any name they like, it is still "divide and conquer", and we let the fuckers do it. :(

I wouldn't call allowing people of ethnic minorities, disabilities and such like divide and conquer. Everyone is entitled to employment so not being on a union could never be a good enough reason to not allow someone the job. Okay the UK outlawed it but im guessing under the EU directives we are enslaved to it would of been made illegal anyway. Just saying like

 

[pominoz]

Top post, tidyman.

BB_1985, They can put it under any name they like, it is still "divide and conquer", and we let the fuckers do it. :(

I wouldn't call allowing people of ethnic minorities, disabilities and such like divide and conquer. Everyone is entitled to employment so not being on a union could never be a good enough reason to not allow someone the job. Okay the UK outlawed it but im guessing under the EU directives we are enslaved to it would of been made illegal anyway. Just saying like

Neither would i, mate, but we are discussing strikes and scabs.

I believe that you work together, you stand together. To have fellow workers say "you strike and go without to maintain or better our conditions, but i will still work because i don't want to lose money or upset the boss", is about as low as you can get and the sign of either a coward or a ****.
Just saying ;)

 

[tidyman]

This idea that a union wanting staff of the same grades to be on different rates of pay is also hyperthetical nonsense. The union negotiates for all staff. Members and non members.

This isn't always strictly true, it depends upon the structure/makeup of your "staff".

I was outsourced, under TUPE rules, to my employer along with a group of others, some were union members, some were not. We have our T&C's from our old employer. Employees of the company we joined have different T&C's. We (the staff that were TUPEd over) are in what is called a Collective Bargaining Unit, or CBU. The union negotiates for ALL staff in the CBU (union and non-union members) but not for those staff who did not TUPE over. As such we get different pay rises to them, different pension schemes etc. Non-CBU employees can join the CBU (after 1 year of working at our site) but their joining has to be agreed by the union, and one of their rules on joining the CBU is you MUST also join the union. If you were already in the CBU, but not a union member, then they can't force you to join te union, or throw you out of the CBU.

I know there are many cases where the same grade staff are on different pay and conditions. In supermarkets for example where they are constantly being taken over, you can have staff who started under three and four different companies and are on the pay and conditions of whichever supermarket was running the show when they joined.

I was generalising about the union negotiating for all staff without excluding non members from receiving any of the benefits they gain.