Trade Union Recognition

[Pat Ayres]

Protect yourself, join a union.

Keep all correspondance and make notes of any meetings/discussions.

Your boss is your boss, not your friend.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Protect yourself, join a union.

Keep all correspondance and make notes of any meetings/discussions.

Your boss is your boss, not your friend.

 

The employer and the worker have nothing in common so definitely, but a shame that unions behave as if they do.

[thesultanofsheight]

The employer and the worker have nothing in common so definitely, but a shame that unions behave as if they do.

 

Have you actually had a full time job yet to test this theory of yours?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The employer and the worker have nothing in common so definitely, but a shame that unions behave as if they do.

 

Have you actually had a full time job yet to test this theory of yours?

 

I am currently in a full-time role right now and have been a while and have spent most of the time in employment (both full and part time) since I was 18.

 

At its most basic but most important, the workers interest is about maintaining their wage for this is what they depend on, and to secure a better wage. The interest of the employer is fundamentally to make more profit, which involves keeping wages as low as is possible without jeopardising labour retention. Unions in practise often behave as a mediator accepting concessions by finding a middle ground, often this involves those higher up in the hierarchies of the unions selling out on the workers.

 

I am not against unions, but rather pointing out my criticisms of them.

[Utah 01]

IIRC there is nothing to stop any Manx worker joining a union; the problem is that under Manx law, there is no obligation upon the employer to recognise the union for any form of collective bargaining. In the UK, union recgnition is manadated by law where more than 50% of the workforce are union members. The weakness of Manx law in this area is a deliberate ploy to support the Govt's boast of 'no union problems on the Isle of Man' when enticing firms to locate to the Island. This, of course, does a great disservice to Manx workers and undoubtedly disadvantages our workforce at all levels.

 

The Keys intelligencia is only to keen to ape some of loony and unecessary legislation from the UK but where it comes to something of use to the Manx workforce it shows complete indifference. It is high time that legislation was brought to enforce union recogntion and curb the widespread 18th century 'mill-owner mentality' so prevalent amongst many Manx employers which would appear to include Shoprite.

[Mutley]

Yeah that's all fab and groovy but does anyone have any real experience as a member of a Union over here and can offer some advice?

[Pat Ayres]

Yeah that's all fab and groovy but does anyone have any real experience as a member of a Union over here and can offer some advice?

I have worked as a TU official at all levels, both as a convenor and negotiator.

The one time I had to call on my union to pull a boss into line they were very supportive. I have also intervened on behalf of others, in a different union, and again useful intervention was received.

Having worked for a few employers here (the burden an activist has to bear, multiple employment ) the mention of the word sends shivers down their jelly like spines. Pay your dues and get protected.

For advice PM me. I'll try to steer you right.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

IIRC there is nothing to stop any Manx worker joining a union; the problem is that under Manx law, there is no obligation upon the employer to recognise the union for any form of collective bargaining. In the UK, union recgnition is manadated by law where more than 50% of the workforce are union members. The weakness of Manx law in this area is a deliberate ploy to support the Govt's boast of 'no union problems on the Isle of Man' when enticing firms to locate to the Island. This, of course, does a great disservice to Manx workers and undoubtedly disadvantages our workforce at all levels.

 

In not recognising a union, is it not the case that the employer can pretty much pick and choose what it does and does not recognise, to the extent that it may not recognise ANY union? What are the implications then if members of a union wish to take any sort of strike or picket actions?

 

Would it not be prudent to get as many workers to join their union in order to take action against the company, possibly by striking?

 

The Keys intelligencia is only to keen to ape some of loony and unecessary legislation from the UK but where it comes to something of use to the Manx workforce it shows complete indifference.

 

It may be indifference. But the Keys respond to business interests. Business is far more important than the satisfaction of the worker. It wouldn't make sense for them to be an advocate of the joining and recognition of unions.

[Utah 01]

I don't think it's indifference on the part of our legislators. I would suggest that it's a conscious decision to limit unionisation and tip the balance of industrial relations (or lack of them) heavily in favour of the employer thereby sanctioning the scope for exploitation of the workforce. The crux of the matter is there is NO OBLIGATION imposed by law for union recognition and this is bannana republic mentality - oops, what have I said! Of course, we don't grow bannanas here.

 

There is allowance in Manx law for the taking of industrial action but the legislation is very kidd gloves, is heavily weighted towards the employer and confers very few rights on the employee.

 

With 'hard times' approaching for many, there has, perhaps, never been a greater need for union protection for employees; there are too many employers who will be more than happy to unilaterally impose new terms, conditions and pay on the back of 'if you don't like it you know what you can do'.

 

The majority of us are workers and for our government (I always use that term loosely) to deny the manx workforce the rights of formal union recognition is a disgrace in 2008.

[BETTYBOO68]

I don't think it's indifference on the part of our legislators. I would suggest that it's a conscious decision to limit unionisation and tip the balance of industrial relations (or lack of them) heavily in favour of the employer thereby sanctioning the scope for exploitation of the workforce. The crux of the matter is there is NO OBLIGATION imposed by law for union recognition and this is bannana republic mentality - oops, what have I said! Of course, we don't grow bannanas here.

 

There is allowance in Manx law for the taking of industrial action but the legislation is very kidd gloves, is heavily weighted towards the employer and confers very few rights on the employee.

 

With 'hard times' approaching for many, there has, perhaps, never been a greater need for union protection for employees; there are too many employers who will be more than happy to unilaterally impose new terms, conditions and pay on the back of 'if you don't like it you know what you can do'.

 

The majority of us are workers and for our government (I always use that term loosely) to deny the manx workforce the rights of formal union recognition is a disgrace in 2008.

 

majority if not all of government workers are in various unions, amicus,unite,t&g(which is now part of unite) and prospect. not all that all government manual workers have the whitley council also.

although the government probably don't like unions it has never denied an employee the right to join one...

 

sometimes union representation can make matters worse and some individuals get away with murder in the workplace because of the union...

[Sebrof]

sometimes union representation can make matters worse and some individuals get away with murder in the workplace because of the union...

 

The history of the trades union movement is a chequered one. We might still have a coal industry and a British-owned car industry if it weren't for unions. And a much leaner and fitter civil service.

 

Its partly because of the unions that GM and others are going to the wall.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The history of the trades union movement is a chequered one. We might still have a coal industry and a British-owned car industry if it weren't for unions. And a much leaner and fitter civil service.

 

Its partly because of the unions that GM and others are going to the wall.

 

I am not sure I understand your thinking on this in respect of the coal industry, car industry and GM. What do you mean?

 

The majority of us are workers and for our government (I always use that term loosely) to deny the manx workforce the rights of formal union recognition is a disgrace in 2008.

 

I know the Island has been affluent for the past few decades, has well-paid jobs, and low unemployment but when the shit hits the fan.... Unions could be of so much use.

 

This situation just means that potential that employers have the power to strip the union of its power when it feels fit. Though I recognise that not all union action rests on representing a worker in a disciplinary for example, I wonder how else this lack of recognition affects the abilities of a union.

[Sebrof]

I am not sure I understand your thinking on this in respect of the coal industry, car industry and GM. What do you mean?

 

The constant strikes and poor work ethic helped bring the car industry to its knees. (Appalling management was another factor.)

 

The constant strikes and poor work ethic convinced Thatcher that the country would be better off without the coal industry. So she chose her moment and clobbered it.

 

GM is lumbered with union-negotiated wage rates which are much higher than those paid by Toyota and other foreign manufacturers with US car plants. They therefore can't compete, and are sinking fast.

 

The majority of us are workers and for our government (I always use that term loosely) to deny the manx workforce the rights of formal union recognition is a disgrace in 2008.

 

I know the Island has been affluent for the past few decades, has well-paid jobs, and low unemployment but when the shit hits the fan.... Unions could be of so much use.

 

 

The IOM tends to have better wages than the UK, and (allegedly) lower union membership. Is there a connection?

 

And when times are hard, unions are of no use whatsoever. That's when employers are glad of a strike to cut costs.

 

S

[%age]

Some interesting points have been brought up in this thread.

 

A (long term) strike will only work on the Isle of Man if we have backing from the UK unions. Just now, that is very unlikely.

 

For a number of reasons.

 

One being, that at worst we are presently on the brink of being the pariah of the western financial world, but at best the Isle of Man is the bastard ginger cousin.

 

It seems to me that Tony and his (fuck-wit) cronie's in CoMin could well be on the edge of a di-lem-ma.

 

Happy 2009 y'all.

 

%age

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The constant strikes and poor work ethic helped bring the car industry to its knees. (Appalling management was another factor.)

 

The constant strikes and poor work ethic convinced Thatcher that the country would be better off without the coal industry. So she chose her moment and clobbered it.

 

GM is lumbered with union-negotiated wage rates which are much higher than those paid by Toyota and other foreign manufacturers with US car plants. They therefore can't compete, and are sinking fast.

 

But your line of thinking would give the impression that unions are their own worst enemy. The only reason why people unionise is because of the existing bad conditions and potential for such. Thatcher was only convinced about streamlining the economy and that meant doing away with inefficient industries such as coal mining. She didn't close them down because of the strikes, but the cow stripped the unions of their power because of the opposition. And poor work ethics and striking would tend to go hand in hand. If you are being paid badly, treated badly, or even as the majority of employed being paid less than your work is worth, why work hard?

Though the case of GM, though I am not that familiar does highlight one of the problems of having unionised workers in one trade, area, country, etc. than one's who are not.

 

Though if industries collapse or massive problems occur (such as during the 70s) with strike action and other union action, the unions are not to blame. The workers are not being unfair in what they ask for. Their position is to fight for what they should have. The only problem is that unions are mainly limited to fighting for better wages and unlike revolutionary syndicates cannot move past this role.

 

 

 

The IOM tends to have better wages than the UK, and (allegedly) lower union membership. Is there a connection?

 

I would think so, when wages in the finance sector are significantly better than those of other workers in the UK and even in other forms of employment on the Island it gives the illusion that the officer worker has it good.

 

And when times are hard, unions are of no use whatsoever. That's when employers are glad of a strike to cut costs.

 

If you are talking about a recession then you are quite right, I just meant when the worker is in the shit in their job.