This government are so determined to reduce workers' rights, and to reduce the power of unions, they are now trying to introduce plans to make it impossible for public sector employees to pay their union fees directly from their salary, as we would our pensions and recognised charity donations, and even personal top-up pensions.
Instead, they are going to force every employee to set-up individual direct debits.
They are clearly hoping that a lot of employees won't want to bother with the paper-work, especially those who aren't so good at paperwork, who are probably the most vulnerable in the first place.:(
Of course, they time this during a very unpopular strike by the TUC, hoping to fix that as the image of what unions are all about for the general public who aren't in unions. Most of the work of unions is nothing to do with that, and performs a valuable function for ethical employers as much as it does for the employees. But if you are a public sector organisation and find it easier (cheaper) to negotiate changes in working arrangements etc with a few union reps, apparently this is distracting from your focus of reducing workers' rights.
This is to apply to, amongst others, teachers and nurses. Both of those groups particularly benefit from being in a union because that's how they are protected if a pupil accuses them of touching them inappropriately, or there is an allegation of making a mistake. It is a vital part of their job that they receive legal advice in these scenarios, and unions perform that function. It is very reasonable that the small cost the public sector pays is the automated processing of some union fees.
It will be interesting to know what the banks think of this. Presumably, this will be an additional cost for them, but maybe they'll just pass it onto the unions and the public sector workers in the form of their own fees.
JC must really be a threat to them!
Good, I hope he puts the jumped up little confidence tricksters right in their places!
You betcha. They can be changed for the better, which on this issue is exactly what has happened.
But never mind that, let's set about scaremongering that despite decades of progressive legislation aimed at improving workers rights, the workplace, wages etc. and a government committed to a NLW and further legislation aimed at curbing abuses of ZHC's etc.- it could all go t*ts up at any moment.
It's almost as if you actually believe we're still living 200 years ago and that worker's rights were never consolidated into employment legislation, that there are no laws governing gender equality or discrimination, no improvements regarding health and safety in the workplace, no national minimum wage etc.
Wow.
Seriously WOW.
But you don't want workers to have meaningful rights regarding remuneration and conditions.
You're opposed to collective bargaining, and have said the employee must accept what the employer deigns to give them or leave and try to get another job.
It is you who wants to turn the clock back to Dickensian days.
You betcha. They can be changed for the better, which on this issue is exactly what has happened.
But never mind that, let's set about scaremongering that despite decades of progressive legislation aimed at improving workers rights, the workplace, wages etc. and a government committed to a NLW and further legislation aimed at curbing abuses of ZHC's etc.- it could all go t*ts up at any moment.
Well, it would if you were in charge David!
No collective bargaining and workers must accept what they're offered pay-wise!
They are clearly hoping that a lot of employees won't want to bother with the paper-work, especially those who aren't so good at paperwork, who are probably the most vulnerable in the first place.:(
I assume that the people they elect as Shop Stewards would be able to do this and they would be able to help with this onerous task.
However, I think that this part of the legislation is petty.
I don't believe in the concept of bargaining - collective or individual. I believe it is 100% an employers right to set the rate that they want to employ people at, just as it is the employees right to turn down a job, or leave it, if they don't feel they're paid enough. If they're a valued employee, they may well find themselves being retained at a higher rate. If not, then they'll learn toot suite that they're not.
I also believe that companies should pay their employees a fair and competitive rate and that companies benefit hugely if they invest in employees - salary, bonuses, welfare, environment - the whole lot. I was lucky enough to work with one such company and believe me, the kind of figures you were prattling on about in your previous thread are nothing special.
Link please. In the meantime, I'll give you a few actual stats as to what's been happening to average earnings while Union representation has tumbled.
• Employees aged 21 in 1995 earned 40% more after adjusting for inflation by the age of 39 than those aged 21 in 1975 did up to the age of 39
• Average hourly earnings peaked at older ages in 2013 compared to 1975
• The difference between male and female average pay for the under 30s has decreased dramatically since 1975.
• Since 1975 average earnings for full-time employees have more than doubled after accounting for inflation.
• Since the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, wage growth at the bottom of the earnings distribution has been strong for both full and part-time employees.
• Hourly wage inequality has fallen across the regions and devolved countries of the UK since 1998
You're talking about wages for those at the very bottom - top of my head 20% (or thereabouts) of the population. I agree there's a problem there and, like others here have, I have long advocated a Living Wage rather than a NMW. That's my proposed solution to employers who fail to pay a decent wage - what's yours? You want to stick with tax credits?
By supporting the NMW you are basically contradicting the entirety of your tirade against collective and individual bargaining. Effectively the Government is bargaining on all our behalfs telling employers that is the minimum rate you have to pay people, its switch to the Living wage is an even greater step in that direction. If we had a genuine take it or leave it approach as you suggest employers would be offering £2 an hour in areas with high unemployment.
I've always supported the living wage on here and have been saying for years the fact implementing it could save the Government billions in welfare, in fact the IFS estimated it was £3 billion for ever £1 increase in the minimum wage. When I first discussed the IFS study on here certain right wingers shot me down.
I actually think the NMW will be £10 an hour by 2020 because by then I think the penny will have finally dropped at the treasury that the more normal people have to spend the more it returns to the treasury in tax. £10 is a nice round figure for Osborne to lead the Tories next election campaign.
By supporting the NMW you are basically contradicting the entirety of your tirade against collective and individual bargaining. Effectively the Government is bargaining on all our behalfs telling employers that is the minimum rate you have to pay people, its switch to the Living wage is an even greater step in that direction. If we had a genuine take it or leave it approach as you suggest employers would be offering £2 an hour in areas with high unemployment.
The Government isn't bargaining on all our behalves (who are they bargaining with?). They are implementing changes aimed at improving the well-being of its citizens, pretty much the dictionary definition of the role of any Government. In this particular case by setting and then adjusting a minimum threshold for earnings.
Collective bargaining is a negotiation between an employer and a group of employees in which the latter seek to make improvements to their working conditions. If you want to liken them to anything, I suggest you look at pressure groups.
I appreciate that your paranoia / hatred of businesses leads you to OTT conclusions but even by your standards, your final sentence is a doozy. FWIW, in 1986 - 10 years before the NMW - the bottom 1% of the population were already earning £3.48 ph (2011 prices).
Unions are intermediaries in workplace grievances and disputes, offer legal advice to members, involved in salary negotiations, ensure health and safety standards, etc.
Trying to destroy them is foolhardy and harms workers.
Strikes can sometimes be annoying, but workers have the right to withdraw labour.
Free speech can also be annoying sometimes.
The Government isn't bargaining on all our behalves (who are they bargaining with?). They are implementing changes aimed at improving the well-being of its citizens, pretty much the dictionary definition of the role of any Government. In this particular case by setting and then adjusting a minimum threshold for earnings.
Collective bargaining is a negotiation between an employer and a group of employees in which the latter seek to make improvements to their working conditions. If you want to liken them to anything, I suggest you look at pressure groups.
I appreciate that your paranoia / hatred of businesses leads you to OTT conclusions but even by your standards, your final sentence is a doozy. FWIW, in 1986 - 10 years before the NMW - the bottom 1% of the population were already earning £3.48 ph (2011 prices).
Why are you under the impression that all employers are opposed to dealing with staff collectively via trade unions?
Strikes can sometimes be annoying, but workers have the right to withdraw labour.
Free speech can also be annoying sometimes.
And the public have a right to live their lives. Which is why things like allowing agency staff to be brought in to cover striking workers is so sensible. Workers are still allowed to strike, businesses and the public can carry on per usual
And the public have a right to live their lives. Which is why things like allowing agency staff to be brought in to cover striking workers is so sensible. Workers are still allowed to strike, businesses and the public can carry on per usual
Yes lets look at it this way if agcency staff were bought in as tube drivers in the current dispute and there was an accident say, the spotlight would soon be on those that gave it the green light.
Yes lets look at it this way if agcency staff were bought in as tube drivers in the current dispute and there was an accident say, the spotlight would soon be on those that gave it the green light.
If there was not which is an if then what incentive would there be for TFL to negotiate a settlement when they are effectively using agency workers.
It would just antagonise the existing workforce.
Mind you i doubt very much they would find enough experienced train drivers anyway.
There wouldn't be any incentive. Agency workers effectively neutralise strike action leaving those on strike with only their principles and resolve if they were to keep going. In time, that might translate into public support which could have the effect of bringing Management back to the negotiating table. However, in the case for TFL I very much doubt that there would be anything more than minor levels of public support for those on strike.
But you're absolutely right - safety will be the primary concern. And if there is a sharp increase in the number of accidents being reported, that may also switch public support on the issue.
If there was not which is an if then what incentive would there be for TFL to negotiate a settlement when they are effectively using agency workers.
It would just antagonise the existing workforce.
Mind you i doubt very much they would find enough expierienced train drivers anyway.
More like they'd realise that moving a set of carriages from A-B turns out to be so simple, the operatives could easily be on NMW instead of the ludicrous salaries these union blackmailers demand now.
JC talks about returning the railways to the public sector, the Unions have never realised it left it!
More like they'd realise that moving a set of carriages from A-B turns out to be so simple, the operatives could easily be on NMW instead of the ludicrous salaries these union blackmailers demand now.
JC talks about returning the railways to the public sector, the Unions have never realised it left it!
Well lets broaden it out a bit the vast majority of union members including myself have never been on strike.
The thing is and i work in the NHS the government ignores our pay review body what happens nothing expect we protest in our own time notice no strike.
And it could be argued the rail unions have too much power but do not get shafted like health workers.
What we need is a more constructive way forward then name calling. Like an independant adjudicator independent as in industrial tribunals to hear both sides and make a decision where vital services are at risk,it would need a mind change though from both sides to achieve,as the union side may well have to give up the right to strike and management the right to impose.
More like they'd realise that moving a set of carriages from A-B turns out to be so simple, the operatives could easily be on NMW instead of the ludicrous salaries these union blackmailers demand now.
JC talks about returning the railways to the public sector, the Unions have never realised it left it!
The fact that driverless trains are a distinct possibility in the not too distant future would suggest that what he wrote was not drivel.
Exactly, despite his rude bluster GGP is clearly showing his ignorance as driverless trains are already in operation and have been for many years in London.
Comments
JC must really be a threat to them!
Good, I hope he puts the jumped up little confidence tricksters right in their places!
You betcha. They can be changed for the better, which on this issue is exactly what has happened.
But never mind that, let's set about scaremongering that despite decades of progressive legislation aimed at improving workers rights, the workplace, wages etc. and a government committed to a NLW and further legislation aimed at curbing abuses of ZHC's etc.- it could all go t*ts up at any moment.
Protecting workers from disruption caused by unfair strikes caused by a small minority of the eligible voters.
The public has a right to live their lives free from disruption.
But you don't want workers to have meaningful rights regarding remuneration and conditions.
You're opposed to collective bargaining, and have said the employee must accept what the employer deigns to give them or leave and try to get another job.
It is you who wants to turn the clock back to Dickensian days.
No its not that is being adresssed via another bill on voting thresholds.
Well, it would if you were in charge David!
No collective bargaining and workers must accept what they're offered pay-wise!
Marvellous!
However, I think that this part of the legislation is petty.
This has nothing to do with strikes. It's about how union members pay their subs.
Yeah but bankrupt the unions, less strikes.
Baby steps...
By supporting the NMW you are basically contradicting the entirety of your tirade against collective and individual bargaining. Effectively the Government is bargaining on all our behalfs telling employers that is the minimum rate you have to pay people, its switch to the Living wage is an even greater step in that direction. If we had a genuine take it or leave it approach as you suggest employers would be offering £2 an hour in areas with high unemployment.
I've always supported the living wage on here and have been saying for years the fact implementing it could save the Government billions in welfare, in fact the IFS estimated it was £3 billion for ever £1 increase in the minimum wage. When I first discussed the IFS study on here certain right wingers shot me down.
I actually think the NMW will be £10 an hour by 2020 because by then I think the penny will have finally dropped at the treasury that the more normal people have to spend the more it returns to the treasury in tax. £10 is a nice round figure for Osborne to lead the Tories next election campaign.
The Government isn't bargaining on all our behalves (who are they bargaining with?). They are implementing changes aimed at improving the well-being of its citizens, pretty much the dictionary definition of the role of any Government. In this particular case by setting and then adjusting a minimum threshold for earnings.
Collective bargaining is a negotiation between an employer and a group of employees in which the latter seek to make improvements to their working conditions. If you want to liken them to anything, I suggest you look at pressure groups.
I appreciate that your paranoia / hatred of businesses leads you to OTT conclusions but even by your standards, your final sentence is a doozy. FWIW, in 1986 - 10 years before the NMW - the bottom 1% of the population were already earning £3.48 ph (2011 prices).
Unions are intermediaries in workplace grievances and disputes, offer legal advice to members, involved in salary negotiations, ensure health and safety standards, etc.
Trying to destroy them is foolhardy and harms workers.
Strikes can sometimes be annoying, but workers have the right to withdraw labour.
Free speech can also be annoying sometimes.
Why are you under the impression that all employers are opposed to dealing with staff collectively via trade unions?
I'm not.
Yes lets look at it this way if agcency staff were bought in as tube drivers in the current dispute and there was an accident say, the spotlight would soon be on those that gave it the green light.
Morning Richard...
And if there wasn't?
Morning David.
If there was not which is an if then what incentive would there be for TFL to negotiate a settlement when they are effectively using agency workers.
It would just antagonise the existing workforce.
Mind you i doubt very much they would find enough expierienced train drivers anyway.
There wouldn't be any incentive. Agency workers effectively neutralise strike action leaving those on strike with only their principles and resolve if they were to keep going. In time, that might translate into public support which could have the effect of bringing Management back to the negotiating table. However, in the case for TFL I very much doubt that there would be anything more than minor levels of public support for those on strike.
But you're absolutely right - safety will be the primary concern. And if there is a sharp increase in the number of accidents being reported, that may also switch public support on the issue.
More like they'd realise that moving a set of carriages from A-B turns out to be so simple, the operatives could easily be on NMW instead of the ludicrous salaries these union blackmailers demand now.
JC talks about returning the railways to the public sector, the Unions have never realised it left it!
Well lets broaden it out a bit the vast majority of union members including myself have never been on strike.
The thing is and i work in the NHS the government ignores our pay review body what happens nothing expect we protest in our own time notice no strike.
And it could be argued the rail unions have too much power but do not get shafted like health workers.
What we need is a more constructive way forward then name calling. Like an independant adjudicator independent as in industrial tribunals to hear both sides and make a decision where vital services are at risk,it would need a mind change though from both sides to achieve,as the union side may well have to give up the right to strike and management the right to impose.
Utter drivel.
The fact that driverless trains are a distinct possibility in the not too distant future would suggest that what he wrote was not drivel.
Exactly, despite his rude bluster GGP is clearly showing his ignorance as driverless trains are already in operation and have been for many years in London.