No, I wasn't, but it seems people had more working rights.
If you genuinely think that people had my workers rights pre 1970s than they do now, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The miners strikes were nothing more than bully boy tactics from that scumbag Scargill. Three times he asked the unions to vote to strike and three times they said no. He ignored them and used fear and violence to pursue his own agenda. Thatcher stood up to the bully.
While not directly to blame for it, her idea of being in bed with business paved the way for New Labour moving to the right and introducing zero hours contracts, which the 2010 coalition allowed more of. I can't help but think if Thatcher hadn't dismantled the unions, we wouldn't be in the same position.
The pregnant thing was true though - someone working for Sports Direct on a zero hours contract gave birth in a toilet because they were so scared of losing their job.
Sorry, I was under the impression the giving birth in toilets was quite widespread. Anyway, the link to Thatcher is tenuous, isn't it?
I would agree that if the power of the unions hadn't been attacked in the way they were it's likely things would be different now. But I haven't a clue in what way.
There were constant strikes - mainly over "differentials"
One union got as pay rise as a result of a strike that shut down a factory.
When they returned to work, another union in the same factory would go on strike due to their "differentials being eroded" - i.e. their members were paid more than the other Union's members before they went on strike and got their pay rise , so now the second Union goes on strike for the same pay rise as the first Union so they will still get paid more than members of the first Union.
Then later a Third Union would go on strike and shut the factory down again.
The Railways had the NUR - railwayman's Union,
and ASLEF, the "footplatemen's" union (train driver)
If one got a pay rise after a strike shutting down all the trains - the other would then go on strike and shut down the trains.
Life was complete misery.
It certainly was! We were all constantly held to ransom, even forced to work a three day week and on reduced pay of course. Then the silly buggers wondered why the Tories went on to hold power for so long and made damn sure they couldn't screw up the country and trample over everyone else like that again.
The ridiculousness of demarcation? We weren't allowed to even change a bloody light bulb or a plug in our shipyard offices. Instead we had to wait an eternity for an electrician who might show up to do it, no matter how much it held up our work. We were all way less important than the unions.
Rolling power cuts, electricity rations, lack of coal deliveries when a lot of people relied on coal and didn't we have to have double summer time to deal with them at one point? Rubbish filled streets, unable to get the dead buried? And all while we had to deal with galloping inflation and record breaking highs of taxation. Was it the 60's or 70's when the Labour Government wouldn't allow anyone travelling abroad to take more than £10 spending money? The whole lot seems unbelievable now and it had to be lived through to understand. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6729683.stm
But when you look back you realise just how many of our rights have been eroded by people letting unions disappear. Yes, some of them took the piss, but in general they were a good thing. I don't doubt it was misery for those not involved in the strike, but I feel the same way whenever the buses aren't running cos of the weather, it's just something that happens.
The three day week and rolling blackouts weren't the fault of the union. They went on strike purely because they'd been denied the pay rises people got in the private sector and they were annoyed by that. Seeing as coal was so vital to the running of the country, they quite rightly thought they deserved to be treated better than they were.
If governments had actually just made sure people got what they wanted and treated them better, there'd be no reason to go on strike. Yes the 80s Miners Strike was purely political, but when Thatcher was intent on destroying the North and hellbent on shutting mines (without thinking of the consequences, only the bottom line) you can't blame them. There are entire communities that still haven't recovered from their mines shutting.
We were lucky - my dad was an electrician down the pit and so he could use his skills elsewhere and he ended up working in the NHS for the rest of his career but a lot of the more manual workers weren't so lucky.
If you genuinely think that people had my workers rights pre 1970s than they do now, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The miners strikes were nothing more than bully boy tactics from that scumbag Scargill. Three times he asked the unions to vote to strike and three times they said no. He ignored them and used fear and violence to pursue his own agenda. Thatcher stood up to the bully.
Yes that surprised me somewhat! I'd love to know what they were.
Thatcher did what Labour hadn't the balls to do and after they'd closed down pits themselves. She was left to deal with the rest of their realty, the annual loss of vast sums of money. Mining coal mainly in the most expensive way and when it was being imported more cheaply while the taxpayer was left to subsidise their losses.
Sorry, I was under the impression the giving birth in toilets was quite widespread. Anyway, the link to Thatcher is tenuous, isn't it?
I would agree that if the power of the unions hadn't been attacked in the way they were it's likely things would be different now. But I haven't a clue in what way.
Well, yes, it is tenuous but she was responsible for all the mass deregulation and being in bed with business (as well as being subservient to the US) that has left us in the mess we're in now. Just like World War 1 and the Weimar Republic allowed Hitler to seize power, Maggie's 'reforms' allowed New Labour and the Coalition to sweep in.
Sorry, I was under the impression the giving birth in toilets was quite widespread. Anyway, the link to Thatcher is tenuous, isn't it?
I would agree that if the power of the unions hadn't been attacked in the way they were it's likely things would be different now. But I haven't a clue in what way.
Yes that surprised me somewhat! I'd love to know what they were.
Thatcher did what Labour hadn't the balls to do and after they'd closed down pits themselves. She was left to deal with the rest of their realty, the annual loss of vast sums of money. Mining coal mainly in the most expensive way and when it was being imported more cheaply while the taxpayer was left to subsidise their losses.
I didn't say they had more rights, just that they were in a better position to bargain. Like my example above about giving birth in a toilet. You wouldn't have had that if you had a strong union behind you with the ability to walk out on strike over such awful working conditions. Unfortunately, it is legal now to prohibit joining a union and the few unions that exist don't have that much power.
I didn't say they had more rights, just that they were in a better position to bargain. Like my example above about giving birth in a toilet. You wouldn't have had that if you had a strong union behind you with the ability to walk out on strike over such awful working conditions. Unfortunately, it is legal now to prohibit joining a union and the few unions that exist don't have that much power.
Yes, both when I was a member of a union and when I was not a member. And I would do so again, too, should the need ever arise. Striking is a complete waste of time.
Where I used to work our line manager was a very strong pro-union member and he was also on the union comittee. He was far from pleased, as I'm sure you can imagine, that he strongly suspected that another chap who held similar views to myself, and myself, were going to cross the picket line. It caused many arguments over the years and we'd also been threatened by him, too. But he could do what he liked, it didn't make the slightest bit of difference. It was guaranteed this chap would always be on the gate in the event of any sort of industrial action.
We used to find out what time the picket line was going to be started and get in extra early so that we didn't need to cross it! So, technically, no we weren't crossing the picket line because, when we came in, there wasn't any picket line there!
Just made for a rather long working day, that's all.
I never liked or could indeed easily afford losing pay, but it had been my decision to join a union when I started work and if they voted to strike, I would. Recently, the younger people in work haven't been joining, so the last time we had a strike the majority of people in the team were in anyway and I had no problem with that, obviously. Just the way it is. Or with people who knew strikes were possible and decided to leave the union sharpish so as not to lose money.
But I'll be honest, people who were in the union and came into work anyway (and benefitted when it was 'successful' on one occasion, as well as not losing pay) ; no time for them at all. Never been *nasty* or anything and each case is different. But to agree with and ultimately *benefit* from the strike, but still not want to lose a days pay anyway....hmmm. Not impressed.
Well, yes, it is tenuous but she was responsible for all the mass deregulation and being in bed with business (as well as being subservient to the US) that has left us in the mess we're in now. Just like World War 1 and the Weimar Republic allowed Hitler to seize power, Maggie's 'reforms' allowed New Labour and the Coalition to sweep in.
Actually I agree with you that Thatcher made some appalling decisions, which had far reaching and disastrous consequences for whole communities. I believe it's only a matter of time before an incoming Tory leader completely denounces her legacy.
I also think that closing all the mines was another bad decision, long term. At the time of the strike it is true to say that the mines were uneconomic and there was a glut of coal (so not the ideal time to call a strike, really). However, had we stuck at it, coal could eventually have burned more cleanly, and we might not have run down our stock of North Sea Oil so quickly - the so called "dash for gas" in the mid to late 80's was all about using gas for electricity production.
Kind of ironic that we now import gas from Gazprom, a Russian concern. The witch would turn in her grave.
Read carefully what I said. It's legal in your contract to prohibit you from joining a union as a condition of employment. What they can't do is not have this clause in your contract and sack you for joining a union, or if you were in the union before they added this clause, they can't treat you differently for being in a union. They also can't treat you differently if some workers are in a union and some aren't.
So again, it is completely legal to prohibit you from joining a union as a condition of employment.
Actually I agree with you that Thatcher made some appalling decisions, which had far reaching and disastrous consequences for whole communities. I believe it's only a matter of time before an incoming Tory leader completely denounces her legacy.
I also think that closing all the mines was another bad decision, long term. At the time of the strike it is true to say that the mines were uneconomic and there was a glut of coal (so not the ideal time to call a strike, really). However, had we stuck at it, coal could eventually have burned more cleanly, and we might not have run down our stock of North Sea Oil so quickly - the so called "dash for gas" in the mid to late 80's was all about using gas for electricity production.
Kind of ironic that we now import gas from Gazprom, a Russian concern. The witch would turn in her grave.
Completely agree with you about the pits. Yes, they were uneconomic, what was needed was more funding to find cleaner ways to burn coal as you said and we could have eventually moved to a system where existing workers were trained in a new form of energy production, as nearly all of them had transferable skills.
I'll never forgive her for paving the way for John Major privatising British Rail. Yes, it had its issues but it's far better than what we've been left with now - 20-odd companies, sky high prices, not enough carriages and services being cut all the time.
I didn't say they had more rights, just that they were in a better position to bargain. Like my example above about giving birth in a toilet. You wouldn't have had that if you had a strong union behind you with the ability to walk out on strike over such awful working conditions. Unfortunately, it is legal now to prohibit joining a union and the few unions that exist don't have that much power.
What has a zero hour contract got to do with a woman giving birth in a toilet?
No It's not legal to prohibit joining a union.
You don't seem to understand the unwanted negative dictatorial power unions had over their members and everyone else unfortunate enough to be affected. Do you think everyone wanted to strike and what unions would do to those who didn't? Plus the often terminal damage they inflicted on the companies who employed them.
Why do you think we also lost our shipbuilding industry? For much the same reasons as the over expensive coal industry. Incessant lack of production and greedy union demands pushing up the price of their products with a knock on effect and which helped make many industries wholly uncompetitive. Strident unions hadn't the first clue where the money was supposed to come from to fund their ridiculous non stop demands and disruption.
You do know Labour had started mine closures long before Thatcher came into power? It's far too easy to lay the blame at Thatchers door and I by no means supported everything they did. You say miners were so important and needed to be treated as such? No they weren't at all, that's exactly what they were mistakenly led to believe by union leaders and there was no way they could ever compete with coal imports after Labour gave in and did this in 74.
After the interminable misery miners had inflicted on the nation for years and when the NCB already ran at a large annual loss. Cheaper coal imports naturally increased substantially. They signed their own death warrant while the taxpayer was expected to carry on subsidising their ever increasing losses to prevent their final ruination of the mining industry.
Have you any idea what the levels of say, taxation, inflation and interest rates were in the 70's? They were all horrendous and catastrophic for many people with nothing like the state benefits and rights we have now.
So no thank you, I wouldn't ever like to live like that again.
Read carefully what I said. It's legal in your contract to prohibit you from joining a union as a condition of employment. What they can't do is not have this clause in your contract and sack you for joining a union, or if you were in the union before they added this clause, they can't treat you differently for being in a union. They also can't treat you differently if some workers are in a union and some aren't.
So again, it is completely legal to prohibit you from joining a union as a condition of employment.
Do you have a link for that? Part of my work involves Union stuff and our understanding is that it is unlawful for an employer to prevent an employee joining a union.
I wouldn't be in a union or any job that necessitated being in one. Nor would I go "on strike". I don't condemn people who believe they need to to achieve whatever it is they want, but I have always been self employed and self-sufficient. I move jobs if the pay and conditions don't suit me. I appreciate not everybody can however, it's just not for me.
Read carefully what I said. It's legal in your contract to prohibit you from joining a union as a condition of employment. What they can't do is not have this clause in your contract and sack you for joining a union, or if you were in the union before they added this clause, they can't treat you differently for being in a union. They also can't treat you differently if some workers are in a union and some aren't.
So again, it is completely legal to prohibit you from joining a union as a condition of employment.
I read it carefully and you are still wrong. An employer cannot add a clause to a contract which, effectively, goes against the law. If they do, an Employment Tribunal would haul them over the coals. So you are wrong.
I'm going off the advice of a solicitor here. If you already work for a company then yes, they are not allowed to prohibit you from joining a union or discriminate if you are a member already. What they are allowed to do is create a contract when hiring a new employee that prohibits the joining of a union if they are not already a member.
What has a zero hour contract got to do with a woman giving birth in a toilet?
No It's not legal to prohibit joining a union.
You don't seem to understand the unwanted negative dictatorial power unions had over their members and everyone else unfortunate enough to be affected. Do you think everyone wanted to strike and what unions would do to those who didn't? Plus the often terminal damage they inflicted on the companies who employed them.
Why do you think we also lost our shipbuilding industry? For much the same reasons as the over expensive coal industry. Incessant lack of production and greedy union demands pushing up the price of their products with a knock on effect and which helped make many industries wholly uncompetitive. Strident unions hadn't the first clue where the money was supposed to come from to fund their ridiculous non stop demands and disruption.
You do know Labour had started mine closures long before Thatcher came into power? It's far too easy to lay the blame at Thatchers door and I by no means supported everything they did. You say miners were so important and needed to be treated as such? No they weren't at all, that's exactly what they were mistakenly led to believe by union leaders and there was no way they could ever compete with coal imports after Labour gave in and did this in 74.
After the interminable misery miners had inflicted on the nation for years and when the NCB already ran at a large annual loss. Cheaper coal imports naturally increased substantially. They signed their own death warrant while the taxpayer was expected to carry on subsidising their ever increasing losses to prevent their final ruination of the mining industry.
Have you any idea what the levels of say, taxation, inflation and interest rates were in the 70's? They were all horrendous and catastrophic for many people with nothing like the state benefits and rights we have now.
So no thank you, I wouldn't ever like to live like that again.
What does that have to do with zero hours contracts? The pregnant lady in question was bullied into working more shifts (threatened with the loss of any future work) and she was terrified she would lose any potential work in the future if she took leave to have her baby.
That, in my eyes, is disgusting and inhuman and these contracts have no place in 2016.
I'm going off the advice of a solicitor here. If you already work for a company then yes, they are not allowed to prohibit you from joining a union or discriminate if you are a member already. What they are allowed to do is create a contract when hiring a new employee that prohibits the joining of a union if they are not already a member.
No they're not. That would be unlawful for the reason i've already given.
Surely if they had sacked someone for having a baby that would be sex discrimination?
True, although employers using zero hours contracts aren't obliged to offer any work at all. So, in the case of the pregnant woman, she was terrified she'd never get offered shift work again (this was threatened) and she'd be sort of sacked without really being sacked. Of course this leaves the issue of the fact she's officially on the books still with that company, isn't being offered work by them and can't leave because if she does, she'll be classed as "intentionally unemployed" and ineligible to claim any benefits.
I'm going off the advice of a solicitor here. If you already work for a company then yes, they are not allowed to prohibit you from joining a union or discriminate if you are a member already. What they are allowed to do is create a contract when hiring a new employee that prohibits the joining of a union if they are not already a member.
Well, that solicitor is wrong and if their grasp of basic employment law is so shonky they probably shouldnt be practicing law.
No. Every worker has a right, by law, to choose whether or not to belong to a trade union. Action by the employer aimed at preventing a worker from exercising this right, whether at the recruitment stage, during employment or by termination of employment, is unlawful.
Comments
If you genuinely think that people had my workers rights pre 1970s than they do now, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The miners strikes were nothing more than bully boy tactics from that scumbag Scargill. Three times he asked the unions to vote to strike and three times they said no. He ignored them and used fear and violence to pursue his own agenda. Thatcher stood up to the bully.
Sorry, I was under the impression the giving birth in toilets was quite widespread. Anyway, the link to Thatcher is tenuous, isn't it?
I would agree that if the power of the unions hadn't been attacked in the way they were it's likely things would be different now. But I haven't a clue in what way.
It certainly was! We were all constantly held to ransom, even forced to work a three day week and on reduced pay of course. Then the silly buggers wondered why the Tories went on to hold power for so long and made damn sure they couldn't screw up the country and trample over everyone else like that again.
The ridiculousness of demarcation? We weren't allowed to even change a bloody light bulb or a plug in our shipyard offices. Instead we had to wait an eternity for an electrician who might show up to do it, no matter how much it held up our work. We were all way less important than the unions.
Rolling power cuts, electricity rations, lack of coal deliveries when a lot of people relied on coal and didn't we have to have double summer time to deal with them at one point? Rubbish filled streets, unable to get the dead buried? And all while we had to deal with galloping inflation and record breaking highs of taxation. Was it the 60's or 70's when the Labour Government wouldn't allow anyone travelling abroad to take more than £10 spending money? The whole lot seems unbelievable now and it had to be lived through to understand.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6729683.stm
The three day week and rolling blackouts weren't the fault of the union. They went on strike purely because they'd been denied the pay rises people got in the private sector and they were annoyed by that. Seeing as coal was so vital to the running of the country, they quite rightly thought they deserved to be treated better than they were.
If governments had actually just made sure people got what they wanted and treated them better, there'd be no reason to go on strike. Yes the 80s Miners Strike was purely political, but when Thatcher was intent on destroying the North and hellbent on shutting mines (without thinking of the consequences, only the bottom line) you can't blame them. There are entire communities that still haven't recovered from their mines shutting.
We were lucky - my dad was an electrician down the pit and so he could use his skills elsewhere and he ended up working in the NHS for the rest of his career but a lot of the more manual workers weren't so lucky.
Yes that surprised me somewhat! I'd love to know what they were.
Thatcher did what Labour hadn't the balls to do and after they'd closed down pits themselves. She was left to deal with the rest of their realty, the annual loss of vast sums of money. Mining coal mainly in the most expensive way and when it was being imported more cheaply while the taxpayer was left to subsidise their losses.
Well, yes, it is tenuous but she was responsible for all the mass deregulation and being in bed with business (as well as being subservient to the US) that has left us in the mess we're in now. Just like World War 1 and the Weimar Republic allowed Hitler to seize power, Maggie's 'reforms' allowed New Labour and the Coalition to sweep in.
I didn't say they had more rights, just that they were in a better position to bargain. Like my example above about giving birth in a toilet. You wouldn't have had that if you had a strong union behind you with the ability to walk out on strike over such awful working conditions. Unfortunately, it is legal now to prohibit joining a union and the few unions that exist don't have that much power.
No it's not.
https://www.gov.uk/join-trade-union/trade-union-membership-your-employment-rights
Where I used to work our line manager was a very strong pro-union member and he was also on the union comittee. He was far from pleased, as I'm sure you can imagine, that he strongly suspected that another chap who held similar views to myself, and myself, were going to cross the picket line. It caused many arguments over the years and we'd also been threatened by him, too. But he could do what he liked, it didn't make the slightest bit of difference. It was guaranteed this chap would always be on the gate in the event of any sort of industrial action.
We used to find out what time the picket line was going to be started and get in extra early so that we didn't need to cross it! So, technically, no we weren't crossing the picket line because, when we came in, there wasn't any picket line there!
Just made for a rather long working day, that's all.
I never liked or could indeed easily afford losing pay, but it had been my decision to join a union when I started work and if they voted to strike, I would. Recently, the younger people in work haven't been joining, so the last time we had a strike the majority of people in the team were in anyway and I had no problem with that, obviously. Just the way it is. Or with people who knew strikes were possible and decided to leave the union sharpish so as not to lose money.
But I'll be honest, people who were in the union and came into work anyway (and benefitted when it was 'successful' on one occasion, as well as not losing pay) ; no time for them at all. Never been *nasty* or anything and each case is different. But to agree with and ultimately *benefit* from the strike, but still not want to lose a days pay anyway....hmmm. Not impressed.
Actually I agree with you that Thatcher made some appalling decisions, which had far reaching and disastrous consequences for whole communities. I believe it's only a matter of time before an incoming Tory leader completely denounces her legacy.
I also think that closing all the mines was another bad decision, long term. At the time of the strike it is true to say that the mines were uneconomic and there was a glut of coal (so not the ideal time to call a strike, really). However, had we stuck at it, coal could eventually have burned more cleanly, and we might not have run down our stock of North Sea Oil so quickly - the so called "dash for gas" in the mid to late 80's was all about using gas for electricity production.
Kind of ironic that we now import gas from Gazprom, a Russian concern. The witch would turn in her grave.
Read carefully what I said. It's legal in your contract to prohibit you from joining a union as a condition of employment. What they can't do is not have this clause in your contract and sack you for joining a union, or if you were in the union before they added this clause, they can't treat you differently for being in a union. They also can't treat you differently if some workers are in a union and some aren't.
So again, it is completely legal to prohibit you from joining a union as a condition of employment.
Completely agree with you about the pits. Yes, they were uneconomic, what was needed was more funding to find cleaner ways to burn coal as you said and we could have eventually moved to a system where existing workers were trained in a new form of energy production, as nearly all of them had transferable skills.
I'll never forgive her for paving the way for John Major privatising British Rail. Yes, it had its issues but it's far better than what we've been left with now - 20-odd companies, sky high prices, not enough carriages and services being cut all the time.
What has a zero hour contract got to do with a woman giving birth in a toilet?
No It's not legal to prohibit joining a union.
You don't seem to understand the unwanted negative dictatorial power unions had over their members and everyone else unfortunate enough to be affected. Do you think everyone wanted to strike and what unions would do to those who didn't? Plus the often terminal damage they inflicted on the companies who employed them.
Why do you think we also lost our shipbuilding industry? For much the same reasons as the over expensive coal industry. Incessant lack of production and greedy union demands pushing up the price of their products with a knock on effect and which helped make many industries wholly uncompetitive. Strident unions hadn't the first clue where the money was supposed to come from to fund their ridiculous non stop demands and disruption.
You do know Labour had started mine closures long before Thatcher came into power? It's far too easy to lay the blame at Thatchers door and I by no means supported everything they did. You say miners were so important and needed to be treated as such? No they weren't at all, that's exactly what they were mistakenly led to believe by union leaders and there was no way they could ever compete with coal imports after Labour gave in and did this in 74.
After the interminable misery miners had inflicted on the nation for years and when the NCB already ran at a large annual loss. Cheaper coal imports naturally increased substantially. They signed their own death warrant while the taxpayer was expected to carry on subsidising their ever increasing losses to prevent their final ruination of the mining industry.
Have you any idea what the levels of say, taxation, inflation and interest rates were in the 70's? They were all horrendous and catastrophic for many people with nothing like the state benefits and rights we have now.
So no thank you, I wouldn't ever like to live like that again.
The Trade Unions ruined this Country in the 60's and 70's and brought their own downfall.
Do you have a link for that? Part of my work involves Union stuff and our understanding is that it is unlawful for an employer to prevent an employee joining a union.
I read it carefully and you are still wrong. An employer cannot add a clause to a contract which, effectively, goes against the law. If they do, an Employment Tribunal would haul them over the coals. So you are wrong.
You do seem to live in a make-believe world.
What does that have to do with zero hours contracts? The pregnant lady in question was bullied into working more shifts (threatened with the loss of any future work) and she was terrified she would lose any potential work in the future if she took leave to have her baby.
That, in my eyes, is disgusting and inhuman and these contracts have no place in 2016.
No they're not. That would be unlawful for the reason i've already given.
True, although employers using zero hours contracts aren't obliged to offer any work at all. So, in the case of the pregnant woman, she was terrified she'd never get offered shift work again (this was threatened) and she'd be sort of sacked without really being sacked. Of course this leaves the issue of the fact she's officially on the books still with that company, isn't being offered work by them and can't leave because if she does, she'll be classed as "intentionally unemployed" and ineligible to claim any benefits.
Welcome to Britain in 2016.
Well, that solicitor is wrong and if their grasp of basic employment law is so shonky they probably shouldnt be practicing law.
https://worksmart.org.uk/work-rights/pay-and-contracts/restrictions/can-my-employer-prevent-me-becoming-member-trade-union