Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are going to throw Accusations around try to ensure they are at least on nodding terms with fact " I’m sorry I didn’t caveat my Union comment in a thread about Unions with a comment about politicians.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you are going to throw Accusations around try to ensure they are at least on nodding terms with fact I’m sorry I didn’t caveat my Union comment in a thread about Unions with a comment about politicians. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the big question from Lionel was “ 4th time What place of work what have the better terms and conditions for its workforce? A car factory for example which was heavily unionized or somewhere like Amazon?” My answer, YMMV, if the car factory is still open, I’d say the car factory. If however you were a worker at Peugeot Ryton, Ford Southampton, Honda Swindon or the whole of Detroit then you’d say Amazon. Which was my point earlier, you can fight for workers rights, but there’s a limit of what’s commercially viable. " At last an answer 
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've been a union member all my working life and I've seen the days of getting people in a car park and a show of hands on who turns up to go on strike. To everyone in the union branch receiving a postal ballot voting and then a honest result if the union members actually want to go on strike or not. It's a much better system now." Fully agree. But remember who made the changes from the bad old ways that the unions of the time fought tooth and nail against. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? " How much do you think they should get paid. For example unison has 1.3 million members and GMB has 620,000 member and their membership fees are based on how much you earn. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? How much do you think they should get paid. For example unison has 1.3 million members and GMB has 620,000 member and their membership fees are based on how much you earn. " I'm not saying they do or don't deserve their wages (for me a wage should be determined by relative worth) but I seen someone argue the other day about charity CEOs not deserving of 150k so what makes a union boss any different? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? How much do you think they should get paid. For example unison has 1.3 million members and GMB has 620,000 member and their membership fees are based on how much you earn. I'm not saying they do or don't deserve their wages (for me a wage should be determined by relative worth) but I seen someone argue the other day about charity CEOs not deserving of 150k so what makes a union boss any different?" Depends on the union and the charity . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? How much do you think they should get paid. For example unison has 1.3 million members and GMB has 620,000 member and their membership fees are based on how much you earn. I'm not saying they do or don't deserve their wages (for me a wage should be determined by relative worth) but I seen someone argue the other day about charity CEOs not deserving of 150k so what makes a union boss any different? Depends on the union and the charity . " I don't disagree hence I feel that wages should be determined by relative worth. No one except a particular union's members/charities board/plc board decide that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? How much do you think they should get paid. For example unison has 1.3 million members and GMB has 620,000 member and their membership fees are based on how much you earn. I'm not saying they do or don't deserve their wages (for me a wage should be determined by relative worth) but I seen someone argue the other day about charity CEOs not deserving of 150k so what makes a union boss any different?" Who said that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? How much do you think they should get paid. For example unison has 1.3 million members and GMB has 620,000 member and their membership fees are based on how much you earn. I'm not saying they do or don't deserve their wages (for me a wage should be determined by relative worth) but I seen someone argue the other day about charity CEOs not deserving of 150k so what makes a union boss any different? Who said that?" I can't remember exactly who said it. We had a discussion on the post but pretty sure it wasn't you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? How much do you think they should get paid. For example unison has 1.3 million members and GMB has 620,000 member and their membership fees are based on how much you earn. I'm not saying they do or don't deserve their wages (for me a wage should be determined by relative worth) but I seen someone argue the other day about charity CEOs not deserving of 150k so what makes a union boss any different? Who said that? I can't remember exactly who said it. We had a discussion on the post but pretty sure it wasn't you" Let you off  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? How much do you think they should get paid. For example unison has 1.3 million members and GMB has 620,000 member and their membership fees are based on how much you earn. I'm not saying they do or don't deserve their wages (for me a wage should be determined by relative worth) but I seen someone argue the other day about charity CEOs not deserving of 150k so what makes a union boss any different? Depends on the union and the charity . I don't disagree hence I feel that wages should be determined by relative worth. No one except a particular union's members/charities board/plc board decide that." I agree, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? How much do you think they should get paid. For example unison has 1.3 million members and GMB has 620,000 member and their membership fees are based on how much you earn. " Minimum wage | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? How much do you think they should get paid. For example unison has 1.3 million members and GMB has 620,000 member and their membership fees are based on how much you earn. Minimum wage "Stop replying to my posts please, you were blocked for a reason | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? How much do you think they should get paid. For example unison has 1.3 million members and GMB has 620,000 member and their membership fees are based on how much you earn. Minimum wage
Stop replying to my posts please, you were blocked for a reason "You replied to mine!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? How much do you think they should get paid. For example unison has 1.3 million members and GMB has 620,000 member and their membership fees are based on how much you earn. Minimum wage
Stop replying to my posts please, you were blocked for a reason
You replied to mine! "So I did, It won’t happen again , and you won’t reply to mine again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? How much do you think they should get paid. For example unison has 1.3 million members and GMB has 620,000 member and their membership fees are based on how much you earn. Minimum wage
Stop replying to my posts please, you were blocked for a reason
You replied to mine!
So I did, It won’t happen again , and you won’t reply to mine again. "Fair enough, you can make yourself look daft all on your own | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? " You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so." That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you work in a place without a union you have no voice on things like pay,conditions etc. If you are bullied or the victim of discrimination they are your 1st point of call. Saying that, arguing against something that actual benefits you, is probally rational to your average tory voter." You're living in the past | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? " No its falling because less places have unions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you work in a place without a union you have no voice on things like pay,conditions etc. If you are bullied or the victim of discrimination they are your 1st point of call. Saying that, arguing against something that actual benefits you, is probally rational to your average tory voter. You're living in the past " Of course | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions." Doh
Anyone can join a union | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union "And a lot of places dont have them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them."What do you mean lots of places don't have them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?"A lot of workplaces do not have unions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions."Ahh, workplaces. I see that. Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised."Of course they can But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union."Of course they don't. Why would they? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?"In the examples I have given above | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above "Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union. It's not on the employer to provide one. If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain. See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT."It's not that simple. Do you not think people are just glad to have a job? And certain places actively discourage union activity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity."It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union. Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it. Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world"Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins? It simply wouldnt happen | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen "Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen "But it can happen. Just because you say it wouldn't doesn't mean it can't | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time? "They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can"Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can"So unions should function outside work hours? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer. "So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?"Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place. Stop getting all defensive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?
Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place.
Stop getting all defensive. "I was simply using an example. It has been proposed in the past that all union business should be done in your own time. I'm not even sure facility time is allowed now tbh. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?
Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place.
Stop getting all defensive.
I was simply using an example.
It has been proposed in the past that all union business should be done in your own time.
I'm not even sure facility time is allowed now tbh."I can see the point about say holding one or ones for a member with an issue and that should be done on work time. But outside of an emergency meeting perhaps it would be more fruitful for a positive relationship to hold meetings outside of work time. With the advent of technology now that could be facilitated very easily. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?
Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place.
Stop getting all defensive.
I was simply using an example.
It has been proposed in the past that all union business should be done in your own time.
I'm not even sure facility time is allowed now tbh."You also used the example 'right, union meeting in 45 mins' as to why it wouldn't happen. Maybe it's just me but that statement sure sounds like you want the whole membership to attend | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?
Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place.
Stop getting all defensive.
I was simply using an example.
It has been proposed in the past that all union business should be done in your own time.
I'm not even sure facility time is allowed now tbh.
I can see the point about say holding one or ones for a member with an issue and that should be done on work time. But outside of an emergency meeting perhaps it would be more fruitful for a positive relationship to hold meetings outside of work time. With the advent of technology now that could be facilitated very easily. "Like I said I'm not even sure if thats been cut. We used to get faculty time if there was a meeting about pay or something but we havemt had one for a few years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?
Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place.
Stop getting all defensive.
I was simply using an example.
It has been proposed in the past that all union business should be done in your own time.
I'm not even sure facility time is allowed now tbh.
You also used the example 'right, union meeting in 45 mins' as to why it wouldn't happen.
Maybe it's just me but that statement sure sounds like you want the whole membership to attend"It was an extreme example as to why a union would struggle to function in an environment like Macdonald's. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?
Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place.
Stop getting all defensive.
I was simply using an example.
It has been proposed in the past that all union business should be done in your own time.
I'm not even sure facility time is allowed now tbh.
You also used the example 'right, union meeting in 45 mins' as to why it wouldn't happen.
Maybe it's just me but that statement sure sounds like you want the whole membership to attend
It was an extreme example as to why a union would struggle to function in an environment like Macdonald's."Oh, we know you love extremities. But, let's switch it to manufacturing where it can work. 'Right, union meeting in 45 mins'. Still sounds like you want the whole membership to attend | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?
Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place.
Stop getting all defensive.
I was simply using an example.
It has been proposed in the past that all union business should be done in your own time.
I'm not even sure facility time is allowed now tbh.
You also used the example 'right, union meeting in 45 mins' as to why it wouldn't happen.
Maybe it's just me but that statement sure sounds like you want the whole membership to attend
It was an extreme example as to why a union would struggle to function in an environment like Macdonald's.
Oh, we know you love extremities.
But, let's switch it to manufacturing where it can work.
'Right, union meeting in 45 mins'.
Still sounds like you want the whole membership to attend"I was making a point that in an environment like Macdonalds where it's none stop,it would be difficult to organise anything. Whereas you seem to think that its merely an excuse. If you have a workforce on zero hour contracts how would a union work? It would depend on the context. I've never worked in Manufacturing. I'm assuming if it was a meeting where everyone had to attend, they would do it where it would cause least disruption. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?
Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place.
Stop getting all defensive.
I was simply using an example.
It has been proposed in the past that all union business should be done in your own time.
I'm not even sure facility time is allowed now tbh.
You also used the example 'right, union meeting in 45 mins' as to why it wouldn't happen.
Maybe it's just me but that statement sure sounds like you want the whole membership to attend
It was an extreme example as to why a union would struggle to function in an environment like Macdonald's.
Oh, we know you love extremities.
But, let's switch it to manufacturing where it can work.
'Right, union meeting in 45 mins'.
Still sounds like you want the whole membership to attend
I was making a point that in an environment like Macdonalds where it's none stop,it would be difficult to organise anything. Whereas you seem to think that its merely an excuse.
If you have a workforce on zero hour contracts how would a union work?
It would depend on the context.
I've never worked in Manufacturing.
I'm assuming if it was a meeting where everyone had to attend, they would do it where it would cause least disruption. "It is an excuse to me. If you want it bad enough you'll make it work. If that means doing it in your own time, then so be it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? " The union members: thought that would be obvious! The union national executive committee, made up of working members, with a few co-opted seats for retired members (who also pay subscriptions at a reduced rate). The national executive committee sets out its agenda for the year, which includes salaries etc. They meet throughout the year and annually call an all members' conference to ratify any agreements etc. The membership, and the membership alone set the tone and demands. The union general secretaries you see, most if not all, were ordinary union members themselves and cannot express personal opinion, only that of the membership. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen "No one calls a union meeting in five minutes! If you have a union at work your employer recognises it and will allow meetings to go ahead. Meetings are held during lunch breaks so as not to disrupt meetings and it's not every member it will be the branch committee. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
But it can happen. Just because you say it wouldn't doesn't mean it can't "No it doesn't! Thatcher changed the union rules to avoid "every body out" scenarios. You HAVE to give your employer notice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can"You seem unable to grasp the "union members" are the WORKERS!!! It's the WORKERS who call the meeting with co workers. They won't hold it after work because they're shift workers and will have domestic responsibility. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?
Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place.
Stop getting all defensive.
I was simply using an example.
It has been proposed in the past that all union business should be done in your own time.
I'm not even sure facility time is allowed now tbh."Facility time is only for branch officials. If your workplace has a recognised union they have agreed to meetings etc. It's a symbiotic relationship for want of a better word. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?
Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place.
Stop getting all defensive.
I was simply using an example.
It has been proposed in the past that all union business should be done in your own time.
I'm not even sure facility time is allowed now tbh.
I can see the point about say holding one or ones for a member with an issue and that should be done on work time. But outside of an emergency meeting perhaps it would be more fruitful for a positive relationship to hold meetings outside of work time. With the advent of technology now that could be facilitated very easily.
Like I said I'm not even sure if thats been cut.
We used to get faculty time if there was a meeting about pay or something but we havemt had one for a few years."That would be because most pay deals are set at either three, five or ten years, so no need. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?
Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place.
Stop getting all defensive.
I was simply using an example.
It has been proposed in the past that all union business should be done in your own time.
I'm not even sure facility time is allowed now tbh.
You also used the example 'right, union meeting in 45 mins' as to why it wouldn't happen.
Maybe it's just me but that statement sure sounds like you want the whole membership to attend
It was an extreme example as to why a union would struggle to function in an environment like Macdonald's."I'll think you'll find it's more a case of a younger, transient etc workforce. Paying union subs from a low paid job doesn't make sense: I can see that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge. "Spot on, up to date and accurate.. Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason.."Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge. Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things. I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union."Good..
As an ex official also there's an awful lot of misconceptions many malicious about the benefits of being collectively represented which are based on some of the more radical actions that no longer take place..
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?
Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place.
Stop getting all defensive.
I was simply using an example.
It has been proposed in the past that all union business should be done in your own time.
I'm not even sure facility time is allowed now tbh.
I can see the point about say holding one or ones for a member with an issue and that should be done on work time. But outside of an emergency meeting perhaps it would be more fruitful for a positive relationship to hold meetings outside of work time. With the advent of technology now that could be facilitated very easily.
Like I said I'm not even sure if thats been cut.
We used to get faculty time if there was a meeting about pay or something but we havemt had one for a few years.
That would be because most pay deals are set at either three, five or ten years, so no need."Ours is every year | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union."S'funny I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyway, on a thread about Unions, do the leaders of unions earn/deserve to be paid salaries in the region of 100-150 grand or whatever, when that money comes from members contributions, many of whom are low paid? You realise union membership is not mandatory right? You realise it's the members who set the salaries, so are you wanting to tell people how they should spend their money? Didn't think so. That's probably why union membership is falling so much then. And what do you mean it's the members who set the salaries? Which members? No its falling because less places have unions. Doh
Anyone can join a union
And a lot of places dont have them.
What do you mean lots of places don't have them?
A lot of workplaces do not have unions.
Ahh, workplaces. I see that.
Any employee can join a union though. And if an employer has more than 20 employees then a union can use the statutory route to be recognised.
Of course they can
But a lot of workplaces do not have their own union.
Of course they don't. Why would they?
In the examples I have given above
Then what I would say to those employees is they can always start a union.
It's not on the employer to provide one.
If employees are too lazy to either create or join one then they have no platform on which to complain.
See this is the thing, with a lot of things, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, GO AND GET IT.
It's not that simple.
Do you not think people are just glad to have a job?
And certain places actively discourage union activity.
It is that simple though. You cannot be fired for organising a union.
Who cares if a workplace actively discourages it.
Just sounds like excuses to me. For too many excuses in this world
Ok well look at somewhere like McDonald's for example
What would the reaction be there if they were like..right union meeting 45 mins?
It simply wouldnt happen
Do union meetings etc have to be organised in work time?
They don't have to be but can be. This is one of the shit parts see, unions will hold meetings during working hours just because they can
Ah ok. Seems a little counter productive if you want good relations with the employer.
So if you are bullied at work you should speak to someone in your own time?
Didn’t say that. Was thinking more along the lines of the whole branch/membership holding a meeting at a work place.
Stop getting all defensive.
I was simply using an example.
It has been proposed in the past that all union business should be done in your own time.
I'm not even sure facility time is allowed now tbh.
You also used the example 'right, union meeting in 45 mins' as to why it wouldn't happen.
Maybe it's just me but that statement sure sounds like you want the whole membership to attend
It was an extreme example as to why a union would struggle to function in an environment like Macdonald's.
I'll think you'll find it's more a case of a younger, transient etc workforce. Paying union subs from a low paid job doesn't make sense: I can see that."The point was being made that people were too lazy too join a union. I was arguing that in some environments its hardly encouraged to be in a union..I used macondanlds as an example, the likes of Amazon and asda would be 2 others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive "And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?"So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?"Some union reps can be disruptive. I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them."Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?"Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact. If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?
Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact.
If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question."Ha ha Superb Another flounce | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?
Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact.
If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question.
Ha ha
Superb
Another flounce "I presume by that response you're not open to an actual discussion then? Thought not... tata for now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?
Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact.
If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question.
Ha ha
Superb
Another flounce "Well not really. It’s just resorting to blithe desperation for micro victories. Shame really as Mistress brought some good knowledge in and now it’s about clawing back points. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?
Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact.
If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question.
Ha ha
Superb
Another flounce
Well not really. It’s just resorting to blithe desperation for micro victories.
Shame really as Mistress brought some good knowledge in and now it’s about clawing back points. "Not really He made a dig about unions being disruptive and then backtracked saying I've got nothing against unions. Then had a flounce when pulled up on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?
Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact.
If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question.
Ha ha
Superb
Another flounce
Well not really. It’s just resorting to blithe desperation for micro victories.
Shame really as Mistress brought some good knowledge in and now it’s about clawing back points.
Not really
He made a dig about unions being disruptive and then backtracked saying I've got nothing against unions.
Then had a flounce when pulled up on it."I hardly had a flounce. I stood by what I said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?
Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact.
If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question.
Ha ha
Superb
Another flounce
Well not really. It’s just resorting to blithe desperation for micro victories.
Shame really as Mistress brought some good knowledge in and now it’s about clawing back points.
Not really
He made a dig about unions being disruptive and then backtracked saying I've got nothing against unions.
Then had a flounce when pulled up on it."Yes really. It’s all about personal pride now. Looks like some people are bent out of shape. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?
Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact.
If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question.
Ha ha
Superb
Another flounce
Well not really. It’s just resorting to blithe desperation for micro victories.
Shame really as Mistress brought some good knowledge in and now it’s about clawing back points.
Not really
He made a dig about unions being disruptive and then backtracked saying I've got nothing against unions.
Then had a flounce when pulled up on it.
Yes really. It’s all about personal pride now. Looks like some people are bent out of shape. "Nope Simply pointing out the apparent u turn. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?
Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact.
If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question.
Ha ha
Superb
Another flounce
Well not really. It’s just resorting to blithe desperation for micro victories.
Shame really as Mistress brought some good knowledge in and now it’s about clawing back points.
Not really
He made a dig about unions being disruptive and then backtracked saying I've got nothing against unions.
Then had a flounce when pulled up on it.
Yes really. It’s all about personal pride now. Looks like some people are bent out of shape.
Nope
Simply pointing out the apparent u turn."In order to score a micro victory. Otherwise why simply point it out | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?
Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact.
If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question.
Ha ha
Superb
Another flounce
Well not really. It’s just resorting to blithe desperation for micro victories.
Shame really as Mistress brought some good knowledge in and now it’s about clawing back points.
Not really
He made a dig about unions being disruptive and then backtracked saying I've got nothing against unions.
Then had a flounce when pulled up on it.
Yes really. It’s all about personal pride now. Looks like some people are bent out of shape.
Nope
Simply pointing out the apparent u turn.
In order to score a micro victory. Otherwise why simply point it out
"Quite... But I haven't performed a uturn. I stand by what I said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?
Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact.
If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question.
Ha ha
Superb
Another flounce
Well not really. It’s just resorting to blithe desperation for micro victories.
Shame really as Mistress brought some good knowledge in and now it’s about clawing back points.
Not really
He made a dig about unions being disruptive and then backtracked saying I've got nothing against unions.
Then had a flounce when pulled up on it.
Yes really. It’s all about personal pride now. Looks like some people are bent out of shape.
Nope
Simply pointing out the apparent u turn.
In order to score a micro victory. Otherwise why simply point it out
"What's a micro victory? I'm sure if I'd have done it ,no one would have said a peep. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?
Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact.
If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question.
Ha ha
Superb
Another flounce
Well not really. It’s just resorting to blithe desperation for micro victories.
Shame really as Mistress brought some good knowledge in and now it’s about clawing back points.
Not really
He made a dig about unions being disruptive and then backtracked saying I've got nothing against unions.
Then had a flounce when pulled up on it.
Yes really. It’s all about personal pride now. Looks like some people are bent out of shape.
Nope
Simply pointing out the apparent u turn.
In order to score a micro victory. Otherwise why simply point it out
Quite...
But I haven't performed a uturn.
I stand by what I said."You did You have nothing against unions but union reps are disruptive. Think we have established that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?
Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact.
If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question.
Ha ha
Superb
Another flounce
Well not really. It’s just resorting to blithe desperation for micro victories.
Shame really as Mistress brought some good knowledge in and now it’s about clawing back points.
Not really
He made a dig about unions being disruptive and then backtracked saying I've got nothing against unions.
Then had a flounce when pulled up on it.
Yes really. It’s all about personal pride now. Looks like some people are bent out of shape.
Nope
Simply pointing out the apparent u turn.
In order to score a micro victory. Otherwise why simply point it out
Quite...
But I haven't performed a uturn.
I stand by what I said.
You did
You have nothing against unions but union reps are disruptive.
Think we have established that
"This is an attempt at a micro victory seeing as though you asked mate.
Anyway let’s chat Unions | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge.
Spot on, up to date and accurate..
Helps to cut through the what if from people who are opposed to having workplace representation for whatever reason..
Miss tress has indeed shown the knowledge. It's nice to have someone actually have the knowledge.
Just to point out, I am in no way opposed to unions. I took grievance with Lionel saying certain things.
I still stand by the fact that anyone can join a union and anyone can start a union.
S'funny
I distinctly recall you saying.. unions can hold meetings during work times just because they can suggesting they are disruptive
And I stand by that. Are you saying it doesn't or hasn't happened?
So you have nothing against unions but you think they are disruptive?
Some union reps can be disruptive.
I said I'm not opposed to unions. That doesn't mean I have to like everything about them.
Right..so unions reps are disruptive..not unions?
Go bore someone else Lionel. Same old tact.
If you want to have a discussion then I'm open but this is not an interview where you just bombard with question after question.
Ha ha
Superb
Another flounce
Well not really. It’s just resorting to blithe desperation for micro victories.
Shame really as Mistress brought some good knowledge in and now it’s about clawing back points.
Not really
He made a dig about unions being disruptive and then backtracked saying I've got nothing against unions.
Then had a flounce when pulled up on it.
Yes really. It’s all about personal pride now. Looks like some people are bent out of shape.
Nope
Simply pointing out the apparent u turn.
In order to score a micro victory. Otherwise why simply point it out
Quite...
But I haven't performed a uturn.
I stand by what I said.
You did
You have nothing against unions but union reps are disruptive.
Think we have established that
"I have nothing against humans per se. But some of them are utterly fucking horrible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mistress bringing the real union knowledge. "After 25 years as a full time official I should hope so! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
