Lets scrap them. Different unions for train drivers, retailers, care givers, health care etc. what a load of nonsense. All unions in their current form do is distract us from the appalling exploitation of workers while we lash out at train drivers for causing chaos.

How about workers (working class and lots of middle class) realise if we band together and unite, no matter what our race, football team, religion, sexuality, music taste, gender, or hairstyle, we can have one super powerful union that if it went on strike for 2 days the entire country and its leaders will on their knees in a quivering wreck. Then we can collectively bargain against them and achieve better working conditions for WORKERS. you know. people who WORK FOR A LIVING!!

What are your thoughts on the matter? Should someone born into the elite or someone who does nothing all day be better off than someone slogging away for 30 - 60+ hours a week to keep the country running?

If you did just have one super union all those union bosses with their cosy jobs would have to start earning a living for a change

I guess unions are a job for the sake of a job in themselves and also a way of giving workers a false voice, so thats probably why this is

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...s-run-rampant/

Unions have in the past brought us many many rights and supported men and women in times of trouble. It makes me sad to see people not realising how well off we are because of the work done by them.

Different sectors need different things from them, I can't imagine how one Union could really represent everyone. Back in the 60s the agricultural Union was fighting for families to be housed when farmers contracted their workforce would any other union have understood their plight ? I don't think so.

In my opinion the Unions are too big rather than too small. What you are proposing is essentially a political party (the Labour party?).
Unite and Unison and the ilk should be broken up, they have too many fingers in too many pies. A union should cover one industry or profession, they are more effective that way.

The problem with the unions, is that they got to big for their boots in the 1970's.

They stopped protecting the rights of workers, and started to see the bosses as 'the enemy'.

One they stuck their heads that far over the parapet, they shot themselves in the foot....

The problem with some unions is they protect the higher earners who are members and couldn't give a toss about newer lower paid entry level workers.

Guess who it costs if the unions shut down many industries and the UK becomes uninvestable by multinationals?

Yes that's right jobs, the public etc. Many industries work just fine without unions, these silly disputes of late are to do with who opens doors on a train etc, ridiculous. I say just disband the unions.

I can't agree with your points here at all. Work isn't uniform and homogeneous, so the representation of its workers shouldn't be handled by one all-powerful union either.

Unions represent general groups of workers, and then shop stewards represent the subsets within that group because each subset has specific working conditions and expectations. It's impossible to effectively represent all of the interested parties with one single union.

The other problem is what happens in the event of strike action. With one union all other working groups would get pulled in to industrial action for issues that have no bearing or relevance on their particular part of industry or commerce. Do you really want no food in your shops because the road haulage industry and the shop workers are dragged out on strike because the train drivers have a grievance? That would kill the country.


Whether someone is born in to money is a separate issue and unrelated (IMO) to any discussion about unions.

If you're talking about the unemployed, no, they shouldn't be better off than a worker. But nor should they be unfairly penalised with sanctions or used as a political punch bag by a Government intent on pursuing the "divide and conquer" mantra.

Commuters on the Southern franchise are pissed off because the franchise owners have screwed up running the service. The train drivers are the victims off this appalling mismanagement just as much as the commuters are. I have every sympathy with every commuter who doesn't know whether they'll get to work on time if at all. But if the management had done a better job then the train drivers wouldn't now be out on strike.

My father was a shop steward, and a lifetime Labour supporter
In 1979 however he decided that enough was enough, resigned from his stewardship and the Labour party. He voted for Margaret Thtcher

there's more of us and them, revolution, let's march to Parliament and have Gove and Boris's head on a stick, we may go skint but at least we'll be skint and satisifed

This is weird. I've just come on here and seen this thread after getting half-way through I'm All Right Jack, a film from 1959, on YouTube, which I'm shortly going to watch the rest of. It's all about unions and is quite an eye-opener as to what industrial practices were like at that time.

You do realise that all the individual unions band together already through the Trades Union Congress (TUC)?

Peter Sellers is not half bad is he ? I also recommend Strike by Comic Strip, also on youtube, an unflinching look at the miners strike

And did he come to regret that decision when she started the dismantling of industry, the unions and selling off the social housing, all of which has contributed in a very significant way to the morally and economically bankrupt society we live in today.

he probably couldn't give a ****, he only paid £8,000 for his council house

Hello OP. You haven't really thought this through.

There isn't a clear cut group of "workers" that you can band together. The union of which I am a member is fairly specialist but the fees would make your eyes water, around £1k a year - but has almost 100% membership in my company.

I'd rather have my future in their hands, than a giant generic union.

I agree with you absolutely.

People need a voice to represent them sometimes.

Look at Iceland - the people spoke, the government resigned and a new one put in place. They are now a very successful nation. Mind you, they did what the UK didn't have the balls to do during the financial crisis - they jailed bankers!

ETA: Nothing to do with unions, I know - but what people can do when coming together for change.

Workers need representation on company boards, and this is what unions should be fighting for. At the moment companies seem to be relying on the court of public opinion to go against workers and unions in pretty much every industrial dispute. This is because the withdrawal of labour is the only thing unions have to fall back on and this action tends to inconvenience the public. It also doesn't help that our press is overwhelmingly anti-union.

Unions ain't what they used to be. I'm currently months into a major grievance complaint and recently went to them to see if they could help. 'What is it exactly you want us to do?' seemed to be the message I got back. Not even a meeting with me to discuss what was going on.

This fails to take into account that those classified as workers would be part of that quivering wreck.

One trade union is not the answer. I think workers would be better off going the other way and having more localised trade unions, small enough that the people at the top knew all the people at the bottom in the union structure personally.

Another thing trade unions need is fewer people who get bogged down in technicalities and more people who can present the dispute in a way that is more accessible to the wider public.

Consider the Southern Rail situation. We have been led to believe it is all about who opens the door. That seems quite trivial from a distance. Clearly it is not about that at all. The union should be going on the attack, asking Southern Rail to explain how the presence of guards on trains performing all their current duties is creating problems for passengers, and how the experience of passengers would be improved if certain duties were taken away from guards.

Southern Rail wouldn't be able to do that, because their decision is purely financial. They want to save money. If they can reduce the duties of guards gradually over time, eventually they will be able to get rid of guards completely.Drivers will take responsibility for financial transactions like bus conductors.

We know they don't need to save money because of the high salaries of the people at the top, which the trade union could highlight. Their corporate greed would be exposed and their reputation could be ruined.

BIB - Of course it would kill the country! But thats the whole point of industrial action fighting for their rights! Whats the alternative? a few people holding up a sign? Wow thats going to make Theresa May sit up and gasp.

If too many people at the top have an easy ride, or were born into money, then they have no idea of the struggles that go on down at base level, among the poor. That won't help anyone get better worker rights.

Lastly, we are talking about a train potentially carrying over 1000 people, travelling at high speeds with ONE PERSON in authority on board. This after a binman killed people after falling asleep and then there was that suicidal pilot. We should be in outrage that such a decision is being considered, with no basic income for those who lose their jobs either.

I have to disagree with you. You have a very naive view of the world.

Union leaders are far too political.