www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19786471 Just wondered what people think the general opinion of unions are? The Labour party does try to distance itself from them as much as possible. However surely without them those lowly workers with very little power are at the mercy of their much more powerful bosses and can be exploited unfairly.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19786471 Just wondered what people think the general opinion of unions are? The Labour party does try to distance itself from them as much as possible. However surely without them those lowly workers with very little power are at the mercy of their much more powerful bosses and can be exploited unfairly.

You're asking that question on [delthe Socialist Worker[/del RLFans?

Unions are a menace in modern times. I'm sure they did some vitally important work in terms of protecting the workers within some industries, particularly mining and manufacturing. But beyond those much needed improvements in health and safety and conditions of work they serve less purpose. When there are disputes it seems they always take an irrational and extreme stance and cause even those within the unions to distance themselves from it. They also feel the need to justify their existence and the subscriptions people pay to be in them, jumping onto minor issues and throwing their weight around, purely so they are seen to be doing something. There is never a serious consideration of the actual issues the company faces either.

I know many on this site lean left, but maybe I should rephrase the question. What do posters on here think the general public's perception of unions are?

I can see that they are designed to protect the lowly workers from potential predator employers, but do they come across this way?

They are vital as a bulwark against the unbridled power of the employer compared to that of the employee.

However they too often let themselves down with stupid press releases that do nothing but reinforce the negative points that the Right would put about.
A good example being threats of General Strikes and threats of going on strike during the Olympics.

Press releases are then spun by the media and it is usually they, rather than the unions, that project a negative image. Prime examples of this are the failure to report the positive impact that unions played in securing jobs in the UK automotive sector, particularly with GM and Tata

Absolutely.

It's also extraordinary just how many people seem to believe that an employer is absolutely always right. In every single situation imaginable.

Mind, the same people believe the lies they've been fed over the years about how every public service worker is lazy, couldn't find work elsewhere, are overpaid and so forth.

To the original question: Labour Party tries to distance itself from its own parent?

And back to spin and people: how come so many don't seem to realise or appreciate that most of the rights they enjoy today were won by trades unions? Are they going to give them up if unions themselves are apparently out of date and a waste of space in 'the modern world'?

I am not a huge fan and often I see them as anti-business, in my industry they have cost more jobs than they have saved.

One of the biggest issues I have encountered is their inability to act correctly in one dispute for the fear that whatever decision they made at that factory would open them up at other factories. So the workers at the first factories are just treated as sacrificial lambs to protect other workers. And so it goes on until the workers just abandon the union in negotiations.

If you were an employer and you had three factories, one had no union, one had a union you could work with and one had a union that was difficult - and you needed to close one!!

Unions have a part to play in H&S and disciplinaries/labour relations that apart I am not sure what else they really bring to the party. We have seen with the public sector they are pretty impotent when it comes to wage negotiations.

It would be helpful - a bit like politicians - if the top brass had more relevant work experiance e.g. Brendon Barber.

So a bit like you on your own, then? Although probably less so.

Evil unions, yes.



We need to embrace the sweatshop mentality to move forward as a world economic power once again.

'Let them eat rice.'

That is an unrealistic scenario as the most likely situation is all would be non-unionized or all would be under the same union but the one they would close is [ithe one without the union[/i. That is obvious.

It would cost more to close the one with the difficult union. They could just ride roughshod over the non-unionized employees. And they would.

You only have to look how hard unions in the UK have to work to protect UK jobs where the company has factories across Europe. Despite the propaganda we have some of the weaker employee protection legislation in the EU. When it comes to closing factories such multi-national companies will often try to close the UK site because the unions on the continent have secured better employment rights for their workers.



That is a rather sweeping generalization. How far do you think public sector workers would have been exploited if they had no union representation at all?

Employers, public and private try it on all the time. The idea workers in general would be safe if we had even more "flexible" employment laws because employers are generally all very nice and behave correctly is a complete joke.



Given directors of companies are often appointed to be directors of companies in industries they have no experience of why do you say this? They are employed as directors because presumably they know how run companies not because they are experts on how to make widgets or whatever. Barber is presumably employed using the same logic. He knows who to run union and secure what is best for its members.

Unions could be so good if only they were run properly.

If they did what they said they do - that is, look after their members by liaising with and if necessary, challenging management in a constructive way, to come up with solutions that are fair and workable to everyone, then no-one would have any beef with unions.

Management, however, have their parts to play too. They need to view unions with less suspicion. But I believe that management will only do that if unions clean their act up first. Otherwise it's stalemate.

As has been mentioned, it was almost entirely down to the union involved (Unite) that Vauxhall changed its plans to close down the factory at Ellesmere Port, with the loss of over 2,000 (IIRC) jobs. The company wanted to do that because it is easier to just shut down an entire site in the UK than it is anywhere else in Europe.

How much better do you want a union to be?

And why are such stories not reported properly?



"Clean up their act"? Because the unions are just so, so much worse than, for instance, the banks that caused the financial crisis or the companies that make big profits but pay poor wages that need topping up by the taxpayer, yes? Or pay massive bonuses or parachute payments for failures, yes? Do you mean "clean up their act" like that? Do you mean companies like News International, which seems to have been up to its neck and corrupt and criminal practices?

Hang on - no one is saying that management or companies are whiter than white, are they? If you can point to where I suggested that, then please feel free.

One instance of a union being involved in General Motors' decision not to close Vauxhall's plant does not for one minute mean EVERY union acts properly in every instance. For every story like this, there appear to be five or ten Andy Gilchrist type figures, for instance.

The difference is Barber and his ilk are spouting about how employers should pay their workers - they have no experience of running a commercial business and the financial and commercial pressures involved. Not sure many MD are suggesting how Barber can run the TUC?