Any union members here?

[jonnyboy666]

Re:

KDM, i have removed the offensive language in you post, mike asked a legitimate question, several answered including you, there was no need for that language in this conversation and others feel your language was aimed at them, this is not acceptable.

after recent events please try and keep a lower profile, be part ofd the forum not a problem to it.

 

[Mike Muz]

Re:

Thanks for the insight, Groovy.

I have heard from someone, that the company doesn't recognise unions anyway. Don't know if this IS true, but if so, I wonder where I would stand if there was a dispute.


Mike

 

[KDM]

That is the hard part, who do you complain about when your union rep is the problem, my experience has been that many, not all, close ranks

 

[Silvergoat]

Re: Re:

Thanks for the insight, Groovy.

I have heard from someone, that the company doesn't recognise unions anyway. Don't know if this IS true, but if so, I wonder where I would stand if there was a dispute.


Mike

Thanks Mike. You do have a right to join a union:

https://www.gov.uk/join-trade-union/tra ... ent-rights

Also, bear in mind what I said about documenting evidence – this can be used even if not a member of union, say going via ACAS or legal routes.

 

[KDM]

Re: Re:

KDM, i have removed the offensive language in you post, mike asked a legitimate question, several answered including you, there was no need for that language in this conversation and others feel your language was aimed at them, this is not acceptable.

after recent events please try and keep a lower profile, be part ofd the forum not a problem to it.

No problem in you editing my post, that is your right .if others feel that was aimed at them I can't see how as I mentioned no names nor a direction? Some of the professionally offended looking for offence, I can't help them with that illness but point taken, that word will not be used again.

 

[Silvergoat]

Re:

Myself, I was generally fine with KDM's post, aside of the slightly colourful usage in places.

 

[KDM]

Re:

I'm keeping a lower profile

 

[mattr]

Re: Re:

Thanks for the insight, Groovy.

I have heard from someone, that the company doesn't recognise unions anyway. Don't know if this IS true, but if so, I wonder where I would stand if there was a dispute.


Mike

Doesn't matter if the company recognises the union or not. They *should* still provide legal support.

I left the T&GWU (having been a member since i started my first paper round at 12) following strike action at work. Basically changing the shift pattern to fall in like with the working time directive. I have absolutely no idea what they thought they would achieve. Striking in order to prevent a legally mandated change in working practices. :facepalm: That's when i realised that a good proportion of the people involved weren't actually interested in protecting workers rights, but just "sticking it to the man".

 

[legrandefromage]

Citizen's Advice, ACAS and the Guv'mt's own websites pretty much covers everything you need if you start getting shit from above.


For example:

There was an issue last year with us being expected to be at jobs by a certain time which wasnt covered by our contract hours (ie: I'd have to be at dealer X for 9am despite it being up to 2 hours away and still be expected to be available for work until 6pm). Employment law was quite specific that if you are based from home, your 'day' starts from the moment you get in your car or start answering work related emails and so-on.

 

[brocklanders023]

Re: Re:

Thanks for the insight, Groovy.

I have heard from someone, that the company doesn't recognise unions anyway. Don't know if this IS true, but if so, I wonder where I would stand if there was a dispute.


Mike

Doesn't matter if the company recognises the union or not. They *should* still provide legal support.

I left the T&GWU (having been a member since i started my first paper round at 12) following strike action at work. Basically changing the shift pattern to fall in like with the working time directive. I have absolutely no idea what they thought they would achieve. Striking in order to prevent a legally mandated change in working practices. :facepalm: That's when i realised that a good proportion of the people involved weren't actually interested in protecting workers rights, but just "sticking it to the man".

To be fair you can work against the wtd rules and shift systems that go against it are still in force. Don't know the situation but if the majority of members wanted to keep their old shift it could be fought for.