Just an observation....

As I walked in to work today along West Street I passed the Job Centre / Employment Benefit offices (whatever they're called in this Brave New World we live in).

There were two groups of folks standing outside, one a cluster of 'clients' and one a group of picketing civil servants.

At the risk of upsetting civil servants on this forum I have to say that the only way I could really tell the two groups apart was the fact that the civil servants carried placards.

At the risk of sounding snobbish, if people want to be treated as professionals then they should really try and look the part, even on a picket line.

Joe

Complete utter rubbish in my opinion. I'm sorry, but how does the way you dress decide how good you are at your job?

For this actual job you could argue dressing in "office wear" could create a divide between the staff and customers and dressing down could make it easier to relate and speak to them.

I really don't see how dress codes have anything to do with it. Id rather deal with a person in jeans and t-shirt who is good at their job, than a suit who is incompetent.

I got bombarded at 7am this morning on my way into work..

'Are you a member of the Union ?' Nope Im a contractor (not really just don't want to get into a huge debate with them :rant: )

Originally posted by boyface
Complete utter rubbish in my opinion. I'm sorry, but how does the way you dress decide how good you are at your job?

For this actual job you could argue dressing in "office wear" could create a divide between the staff and customers and dressing down could make it easier to relate and speak to them.

I really don't see how dress codes have anything to do with it. Id rather deal with a person in jeans and t-shirt who is good at their job, than a suit who is incompetent.

On the whole I'd agree, but to be honest these pickets need to present a good image to passers by who probably don't have the highest opinion in the world of civil servants.

And not all of the 'customers' will be of the dress down type. older people who go there may dress differently to younger ones. Most places I work, even we 'backroom guys' who don't face customers have to wear at the least 'office casual'.

I've never claimed benefits / unemployment benefit / job seekers allowance or whatever as I've almost always been self-employed, but I would say that if I went in there I'd expect to be dealt with by someone dressed slightly more formally than jeans and a T shirt.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
On the whole I'd agree, but to be honest these pickets need to present a good image to passers by who probably don't have the highest opinion in the world of civil servants.

And not all of the 'customers' will be of the dress down type. older people who go there may dress differently to younger ones. Most places I work, even we 'backroom guys' who don't face customers have to wear at the least 'office casual'.

I've never claimed benefits / unemployment benefit / job seekers allowance or whatever as I've almost always been self-employed, but I would say that if I went in there I'd expect to be dealt with by someone dressed slightly more formally than jeans and a T shirt.

Joe

Ah well that's where I differ, it REALLY wouldn't bother me as long as they carried out what I expected of them.

It's always going to be a tricky one picket lines. If they were all out there suited and booted they'd probably also get comments such as "they were all out there in their flash suits, wanting more money....they want to look at the way the people next to them are dressed who would love to have their job" etc etc.

I'm not sure if I hold my viewpoint because I've always worked public sector, but I really don't think a dress code makes any difference, and I personally feel more relaxed casual, and that I do my work better as a result of my comfort. If you're behind the scenes I think it's ridiculous!

You want me to dress like Alan Partridge in "casual" clothes, then give me an allowance or some M&S vouchers please ;)

agreed - you must dress the part, you dont see me turning up to meetings in town hall in jeans and t. slacks for chilling, suits for business. i wouldnt be impressed if my bank manager was dressed like kevin and perry! cant believe they have just done up job centres and now they are making 40.000 people redundant from them! and they want dolers to start doing it by phone!

Originally posted by NATALIESHEFF
agreed - you must dress the part

No, you must not dress what some people, yourself included, decide the part should look like.

Why should you? What difference does it make? It's just a value enforced on you by society, and I for one reject it.

ill turn up dressed like britney the next meeting then

...he he go for it!

Originally posted by boyface
Ah well that's where I differ, it REALLY wouldn't bother me as long as they carried out what I expected of them.

It's always going to be a tricky one picket lines. If they were all out there suited and booted they'd probably also get comments such as "they were all out there in their flash suits, wanting more money....they want to look at the way the people next to them are dressed who would love to have their job" etc etc.

I'm not sure if I hold my viewpoint because I've always worked public sector, but I really don't think a dress code makes any difference, and I personally feel more relaxed casual, and that I do my work better as a result of my comfort. If you're behind the scenes I think it's ridiculous!

You want me to dress like Alan Partridge in "casual" clothes, then give me an allowance or some M&S vouchers please ;)

I've worked in a mix of public and private sector and that may have coloured my views, I guess. I've never been a fan of the shirt and tie but tend to wear whatever the comapny wants me to wear. Reason being if I don't, then I probably won't be working there for long.

It may be conforming, but if being non-conformist means you don't get the contract extended then I'll conform. :)

And being smart / casual doesn't mean M&S or Alan Partridge, God forbid. It means fitting in with the culture in which you find yourself. 'Expressing oneself' in the workplace is fine if you can get away with it. Most techies I know (myself included) probably get away with blue murder because we're almost expected to be a bit weird.......

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Most techies I know (myself included) probably get away with blue murder because we're almost expected to be a bit weird.......

Joe

black jeans kinda tight, some old shoes or boots and a black shirt...possible with a black t-shirt underneath with optional extra of a sci-fi print on it ;) hehehehe. Sorry, couldn't resist.

i love the suit shirt and tie stuff, although im a girl so dont where shirt and tie, it makes me feel grown up and that im doing a proper job now!

Originally posted by boyface
black jeans kinda tight, some old shoes or boots and a black shirt...possible with a black t-shirt underneath with optional extra of a sci-fi print on it ;) hehehehe. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Well, today I'm in VB developer mode, so it's blue open neck shirt, sandy coloured trousers, boots.

Never a T shirt or polo shirt, never jeans.

Joe

I understand that some in that line of work wear casual dress for work, if this is the case then it should not matter what they look like on a picket line.

For the record, I care not what someone wears for work so long as they can actually do the job.

luckily i signed on last friday as i think chesterfield jobcentre is shut today because of the strike

Well the majority of the frontline staff are not allowed to wear casualls for work there is a strict dress code. Allthough not being in the union or on strike I can't vouch for the picketers. My guess is that they are taking advantage of wearing casual clothes for the day.
And trust me on our wages they wont be the expensive kind.

so you look "professional" in sand coloured trousers?? (sounds like chinos to me) lol

Originally posted by vahcon
so you look "professional" in sand coloured trousers?? (sounds like chinos to me) lol

I fit in with the rest of the office. I don't have to meet the people, so to say. If I do need to look smarter for any reason I come in in more formal wear. Part of being professional is wearing what the rest of the office wear, as I mentioned earlier.

And anyway, they're sand coloured...Lord knows what the fabric is.


Joe

I don't have to wear shirt and tie for work but from a psycological point of view it makes me feel more professional and worklike. I have previously worked in jeans and t-shirts and it always has that dress down Friday feel about it.
I like to be able to differentiate between work and leisure and what I wear helps me do that. If say I've had a crap day at work, when I get home and put scruffs on its like you've removed work from you and its easier to turn off.

Originally posted by wibbles
I don't have to wear shirt and tie for work but from a psycological point of view it makes me feel more professional and worklike. I have previously worked in jeans and t-shirts and it always has that dress down Friday feel about it.
I like to be able to differentiate between work and leisure and what I wear helps me do that. If say I've had a crap day at work, when I get home and put scruffs on its like you've removed work from you and its easier to turn off.

Yes I agree entirley with that. Its nice to remove the grimey feel at the end of the working day.

Originally posted by wibbles
I don't have to wear shirt and tie for work but from a psycological point of view it makes me feel more professional and worklike. I have previously worked in jeans and t-shirts and it always has that dress down Friday feel about it.
I like to be able to differentiate between work and leisure and what I wear helps me do that. If say I've had a crap day at work, when I get home and put scruffs on its like you've removed work from you and its easier to turn off.

Totally go with that - it's like the problems of the work day get sloughed off as well as the clothes. When I have 'hard' days that I know are coming I tend to dress more formally - like you say, makes me feel more 'with it' and like I'm psyched up for action.

I find it strange in many places where I've worked that come 'dress down' friday I'm still wearing the same as I normally wear.....:)

Joe

I work at Moorfoot for the home offices work permits side and this morning when I came into work at 7 there were about 4 people there, I went in, I know ill probably get some slack about it, but I really couldnt afford to lose a days pay especially this close to christmas, plus Im not a member of the union, one thing that annoyed me is that they were asking for money to make up their wages, yeah fair enough they are fighting for what they believe but they knew they were gonna lose a days pay, so they shouldnt expect others to try and make that up, anyone who didnt give them anything, was thrown all sorts of abuse, which most people promptly reported to the managers.

Susie
xx

Hey Susie I work in WRS in Moorfoot. I was in at 7 and got exactly the same begging for money. TBH. because you are only allowed 6 to picket an entrance it just looks silly...

Boyface just wants to see you all in the nude, don't you see :D ;)

Originally posted by robbie
TBH. because you are only allowed 6 to picket an entrance it just looks silly...

And more than 6 around a single entrance is intimidating for people who have a right to be there who aren't in the union - contractors, visitors, 'clients', etc.

Joe

it does not bother me what the people in the jobcentres wear just so long as they can do the job :thumbsup:


btw do any of you no katrina reid who works in the manpower services building

Of course you got some (mild I bet) abuse if you went into work in Moorfoot on Friday. You're a scab. The people on strike have given up a day's pay to try to save 104,000 jobs (including yours), the right to sick pay, decent pensions, essential services, and the local economy. You've just undermined that.

Originally posted by ian1917
Of course you got some (mild I bet) abuse if you went into work in Moorfoot on Friday. You're a scab. The people on strike have given up a day's pay to try to save 104,000 jobs (including yours), the right to sick pay, decent pensions, essential services, and the local economy. You've just undermined that.

But what if there COULD be savings made that would benefit services by losing some jobs?

After all, the civil service were quite happy to help the Thatcher government push through various bits of legislation that helped pave the way for closing pits, steel works, etc. and the resultant destruction of associated communities, my home amongst them.

Joe

Originally posted by ian1917
You've just undermined that.

Erm how ? Because she didn't want to go on strike and lose a days pay ?? At the end of the day the PCS will have accomplished sod all as usual..

It took colleagues of mine 12 months to get a union rep to actually do anything by which time it was too late, now they are rallying round like they actually can do anything when they are powerless and have no case to argue for or against..

I will never be a member of the union, waste of my money and no doubt the other thousands of people they have suckered in!

I'd never join a union because I disagree with the modern way strikes are used. Fair enough years ago when you could strike with no fear of losing your job to protest about something important (say, an employer forcing employees to crawl between moving pieces of heavy machinery to clean fluff out). These days, striking seems to just be part of the pay rise negotiation process. I feel the same for all the recent strikes (bus, fire, DWP) - if they don't like the pay, go and get another job. There's plenty of people who will happily do your job for you. Similarly, if the strike's over proposed redundancies, surely it would be better to be in work demonstrating how efficient you can be and how valuable your position is rather than standing outside/having the day off? Funny how strikes all seem to be on days that mean the strikers get long weekends too.
Striking's just an outdated, self-defeating, overused negotiation tactic.

Originally posted by Deejay

I will never be a member of the union, waste of my money and no doubt the other thousands of people they have suckered in!

Looking at this from another angle. When a union negotiates pay rises and other benefits on the behalf of it's members it will often benefit non members across the board. Should non union members, IE people who have not contributed recieve those same benefits?

That's an interesting point, Lickszz.

I should add that for many years I was a member of a Trades Union when I was in the Labour Party. At that time you HAD to be a union member to be allowed to be a member of the Labour Party (mid 1980s) and as I was self-employed at the time as a journalist / software develoepr I ended up in the NUJ.

I paid some quite ludicrously high dues and received no advantages whatsoever, even though they had a freelance branch. When I dropped out of the Labour Party I let my union membership go as well.

As a freelance or contractor I've always had to negotiate my own rates and conditions, but I can understand the quandry when a union negotiates advantages for it's members and all the workforce benefits. Having said that, there have been occasions when the more politicised unions have used their strength as a blunt instrument of political policy, so that also needs to be taken in to account.

Joe

Lickszz makes an interesting point, and one that forces me to reconsider my stance on union membership. I guess that many unions do provide a great benefit to their members (but I'm still against strike action). I'm sure unions are, and have presviously, been responsible for many of the benefits most employees expect these days (H&S issues, childcare facilities/allowances, sick pay etc etc).
It could well be argued that non-members shouldn't receive benefits that unions negotiate for their members. I suspect that, expecially with pay, many employers simply apply the benefits negotiated by union members to ALL their employees rather than face any claims of discrimination against non-union members.

Originally posted by Lickszz
Looking at this from another angle. When a union negotiates pay rises and other benefits on the behalf of it's members it will often benefit non members across the board. Should non union members, IE people who have not contributed recieve those same benefits?

I appreciate what your saying Lickszz but I still think we get a bum deal at times even with the Unions 'Practices'.. In my eyes they have made no difference to the pay I get at the minute..

I never did get the logic of striking.

Take this scenario...

You don't like the 3% rate of inflation offer, so you go out on strike for a couple of weeks and get say 5% instead.

So exactly what did you gain since you didn't get paid for striking 2 weeks?

Without getting a calculator out, I suspect not much and may be you'll end up gaining less than that was offered in the first place, especially if it drags on and it does increase the likelihood of redundancies in future.... so it makes no sense unless someone can enlighten me on this one.

Going on strike does 2 things.

1. You might stand a chance of getting better pay or conditions. If you don't strike you certainly won't. As for the example above, well 2% extra (for the rest of your time in that job remember and as a starting point for any future rises) soon outweighs a few days' lost pay.

2. It shows you're not pushovers. If the boss offers you 1% and you all say "err, OK" then next year they'll come back with 0% or cut your holidays. If you stand up to them they'll think twice before pushing you around next time.

What exactly are workers supposed to do if negotiaitions don't resolve things. The only tactic I ever hear from anti-strikers is "get another job". Why the hell should someone have to do that? What if they do it because they've built up their skills, or enjoy it, or are really dedicated? Does that mean they have to put up with low pay or leave - not much of a choice is it. In most careers it is very difficult getting a new job, locally, for as much pay.

As for people who get the benefits of what unions win even though they're not members, yes that's true but I and I would say most union members aren't bitter about that (although I acknowledge a few are). You can;t stand up for each other and then say try to cut off some indiividuals, that would go against the principle of it all. You just hope they come round to seeing what works in practice i.e. the best policy is to stick together.

I am a PCS rep and need to state a few points:

1. The union benefits all in a unionised workplace even if you do not know it or did you think that your pay rise negotiated itself?

2. Payrise not enough? Union crap then? No, a union is only as strong as its members, it is not a magic agency, all reps are workers just like you except they have decided to do something instead of wishing for it.

3. Bad rep? I f your rep is bad it is your fault, you should ensure they do the job and if they do not then you stand yourself and replace them. Cant be bothered? Then don't complain. And remember bad rep or not the union at the highest levels fights to get you the best pay deal possible and this does not neccesarily include a rep you do not have much confidence in. I dont understand this anyway, if someone comes to me I'm like a coiled spring, thats the whole point as far as I can see.

4. In my expereience people often remain non members through apathy or because they shamelessly like someone else to pay and do the job for them knowing they will receive the benefits. You can be guaranteed that if these people are bullied or witheld promotion they will be signing up and expecting accumulated subs of other people to pay for them. I can forgive that as we live in an apathetic society but ask yourself, are you confident you will never need a union? Either way we all go to work for money and the union will achieve a 3.5% rise as opposed to a 2%. Think of the possibilities if every workplace was solid.

5. PCS achieves sod all as usual? The strike of January 2004 was to stop a below inflation pay 'award' and it has not happened since. Imagine if there had been no strike. Treasury eyes would light up at the possibilities for saving money.

6. With no unions there would have been no NHS, welfare state, equal pay for women, anti racism policies or other safety net or at least not as we know it, we would have been like America, every individual for themselves a kind of modern Oliver Twist.

1. The union benefits all in a unionised workplace even if you do not know it or did you think that your pay rise negotiated itself?

What garbage, Most people are aware what the union do and to be honest if you consider arguing the toss for 8 months about a pay rise good for member who then get it all back dated and heavily taxed, why waste your time?. And then backing down because your realise your unrealistic terms will never be met

2. Payrise not enough? Union crap then?

Pay rises will never be enough but I would have thought that any 'smart' union rep would realise that unrealistic goals will never be achieved'

3. Bad rep? I f your rep is bad it is your fault

A bad rep is the members fault :confused: Hows that work then, you are 'supposed' to be defending our corner so to speak, I've been in the civil service 7 and half years and never come across a union rep that isn't a waste of time!

4. In my expereience people often remain non members through apathy or because they shamelessly like someone else to pay and do the job for them knowing they will receive the benefits.

I remain a non member because I don't believe with the union practices, you don't get what you want all you achieve is calling a strike.. and within a day everyone is back at their desk having achieved nothing and I for one ain't gonna pay you a monthly subscription if striking is your only answer..

5. PCS achieves sod all as usual?

Pretty much mate!

6. With no unions there would have been no NHS, welfare state, equal pay for women, anti racism policies or other safety net or at least not as we know it, we would have been like America, every individual for themselves a kind of modern Oliver Twist.

Bit of an ambitious statement that isn't it ?

the reason they Labour Government decided to change their mind was more to do from the pitiful PCS turnout.

1. don't beg for money on picket lines

2. don't try and stop people getting in and shout abuse.

3. Most PCS reps are trouble makers who stay on a low scale as they spend most of their time talking rubbish/causing trouble in work time.

I don't believe in union practices. After suffering AMACUS who did sod all as they offshore thousands of jobs at my previous job and then harrassed me for fees after I'd been made redundant. They spent most of their time looking self important.

difference with PCS. They seem more incompetent

In many large organisations, Trade Unions benefit the employer as well as the individual. It means that the employer only has to negotiate with one group of representatives and not a whole host of individuals.

The majority of TU officials have had training, are committed to what they do - they get 'facility time' which is no-where near sufficient to cover the work they do. Most TU rep's that I know work tirelessly and many very long hours - all in their own time - in order to represent their members.

TU rep's often act as intermediary's between a worker and a manager helping both to come to a mutually acceptable solution. Often the TU rep will have more knowledge and experience of the rights of an individual than the individual or manager thus doing the job of what many HR people should actually be doing but most don't.

Many TU's and their rep's have negotiated greatly increased Health & Safety requirements in a lot of organisations, they negotiate on many things other than salary - holidays, mat/pat leave, equal opp's, premises, H&S, to name just a few.

Also, as a member of a Trade Union, you have access to lots of benefits such as access to legal advice etc. When I had to make a claim for compensation from a well known supermarket - access to a legal adviser via the TU helped me to word letters so that I got the response I needed.

What PCS are doing now is trying to resist the job-cuts. The job-cuts will result in a worse service across the board. Civil Servants are much maligned by people who do not fully appreciate the work they do. The biggest wasters of money are the MP's who set the Civil Servants a task, plough money into it, then another MP comes along and reverses everything and sets them on another task, wasting much more money.

By being a member of a Trade Union you are giving the Union additional strength and bargaining power thus resulting in a harder negotiating strength.

To answer your points:

Arguing the toss for 8 months about a pay rise is what it takes if the treasury won't budge. Perhaps we should just say "OK then if its going to take a long time just give us what you want"

we could of course strike to focus the treasury's minds but then you dont agree with that.

So you dont like long negotiations and you dont like striking. What is the solution then?

A good pay rise is one above the rate of inflation so we can keep up with price increases, we do not ask for an unrealistic 20% only for 3-4% but then we are criticisised by others for not asking for enough since there is an average disparity of 25% between us and the private sector.

I am arguing my corner but there are thousands of reps with differing personalities and don't claim to speak for them all and acknowledge that there are poor reps. That seems to shock you. You dont seem to do anything about your bad rep/s. and I refuse to believe that every single rep you came across was bad. Did you have their entire career history on disc or something?

You remain a non member because you think the union achieves nothing, well as I said it negotiates you a rise rather then you being handed a 2% like it or lump it. If we try to strike to avoid things not being achieved the 8 month way you don't like that either.

As it happens strikes are rare, before Jan 2004 there had not been a national strike for 10 years.

My statement is historical fact, Britain was Dickensian until after the war when the party of the unions transformed Britain. And no I am no Labour loyalist, not even in the party but the ethics of unionism applied to politics changed Britain into a modern state where people did not wander around hungry with rickets looking for jobs in which they had no rights.

On picket lines a bucket is put out so strikebreakers can contribute in another way. I personally do not use buckets and do not acknowledge strike breakers but again that's the difference between some reps and others. Those that put the bucket there have the right to do so since they work for you and the union negotiates your rise. If you are very principled and disagree with the union then send your rep a cheque for your pay rise as you would not want to keep money from practices you do not agree with would you? But you expect a rise? So who determines that you even get one and not just something on or below inflation? No one is obliged to give you a rise at all and what would you do if they did not, try and negotiate your own?

Any abuse you get on the line from people losing a days pay to make things better for all is likely to be mild and it works both ways even when you the picket say nothing at all.

If you want to cause trouble you join a football hooligan gang, you dont spend time representing people in numerous personal cases and sitting through hours of negotiations.

I dont know about your AMICUS case but remember unions are controlled by many laws which restrict their power.

You are looking at it subjectively. How can you really know about an organisation you are not even in?

PCS has gone from 250,000 to 320,000 members since 2002 when Mark Serwotka, a Sheffield rep from the office floor won the Presidency. So while I accept PCS has had its faults in the past and will continue to do so it is an expanding and ever more powerful organisation. Back in March a public sector strike was threatened over pensions. The government backed down and will now have to resume talks post election in a weakened position. If there had been no union/s they would have simply told you there and then that you are working until 70 and your pension is no longer final salary.

Again, I work for money and PCS negotiates a pay rise every year not a pay "oh OK".

ALL employers are honest and fair-dealing, they all consider the interests of their employees equally important to those of themselves and their shareholders. They all take great care to look after the safety & welfare of their workers and all ensure that their employees receive adequate reward for their labour...

So why do we need unions?

If the first paragraph were true, then we wouldn't need unions at all, unfortunately it isn't, far from it!... and therefore we DO need them. Without the power of the unions, many workers would be mercilessly exploited, as used to be the case at one time... Businesses are rarely renowned for their benevolence!

Originally posted by wibbles
I don't have to wear shirt and tie for work but from a psycological point of view it makes me feel more professional and worklike. I have previously worked in jeans and t-shirts and it always has that dress down Friday feel about it.
I like to be able to differentiate between work and leisure and what I wear helps me do that. If say I've had a crap day at work, when I get home and put scruffs on its like you've removed work from you and its easier to turn off.

Nice one Wibbles. I agree entirely, I also need that feeling that work is over for the day and leisure can start. I work for a software company and work alongside Jobcentre Plus staff all day, their dress code is quite slack and we are told to dress according to the type of work we will be doing during the day. e.g. meeting with customers = shirt and tie, crawling under desks moving kit around = scruffs.

It's not difficult to work out why we have to portray the correct image, most of my work involves teleconferences with our European offices so it really doesn't matter what I wear for that but I feel more assertive and confident when dressed for business.

I think unions provide a valuable service -

My Dad is a member of the CWU. About 15 years ago now he had an accident at work where a piece of equipment fell on his hand and shattered his thumb. As the bones didnt knit together right, the thumb had to be re-broken and re-set around a couple of metal pins. In total he was off work for about a year.

He received full pay when he was off - without the CWU the company would have paid the minimum they could get away with (Statutory Sick Pay)*.

He got compensation - this was negotiated by the CWUs solicitors.

b

* and without the influence of unions in this country there would probably not be Statutory Sick Pay.

You have got to put the governments idea's first and they prefer a large diversity of people which includes every dress style and sexual gender. This is just an example not getting at anyone.

On Tuesday it was announced that current public sector workers would retain their final salary pension schemes (our deferred pay) and the right to retire at 60 if they wished. Part of the long term pay off for incomes lower than those in the private sector and what we all signed up for.

These rights were to be scrapped but the unity of the unions and the threat of possible strike action ensured the negotiating table was re used.

It can also be guaranteed that if the government had been victorious over the public sector the floodgates would have opened on the private sector, working until 70 for a start.

I think this announcement on pensions finally proves beyond all doubt the worth of unions and PCS in particular. It also proves that unions benefit all in the workplace since non members pensions are now protected.