Union members' attitudes towards their non-union member colleagues.

[Mecky 10]

Employees in a unionised workplace that have chosen not to join the union are often resented by some of their colleagues that are union members, because the non-union members can of course reep the "benifits" that the union wins for the employees of the company even though they've not paid into the union.

 

I can understand why this causes some resentment, but isn't this attitude of the union members towards their non-union member colleagues akin to the capitalist approach, in as much as you as an individual get of of life what you put in, so if you dont join the union and pay into it you dont get the benefits of it?

 

Shouldn't this thread be entitled Non-union members' attitudes towards their union member colleagues?

[taxman 12]

As I've already said, I wouldn't break the law. I wouldn't employ a union type in the first place, but if somebody went that way inclined, there would be other perfectly legal reasons to get rid.

 

No, you would still be breaking the law, you'd just be trying very hard to cover your tracks. You would be sacking them for being in a union despite what other spurious reasons you invented.

[redruby 279]

Talk about blinkin' stereotyping!!! I'm not in a union at the moment but have been in previous employment and am considered joining again.

 

The idea that there a 'union type' is a joke. Lumping everyone that belongs to a union as being militant, far left troublemakers does nothing but demonstrate ignorance and lack of intelligence IMO.

[Glennis 15]

Not at all, he'd lose the job for a different reason. I'd find something - but won't employ a leftie or union-type.

 

You are pathetic!

[ampersand 10]

I wouldn't be so sure.

 

What possible desire would any company have to employ union-minded people, with the potential for awkward attitudes, union meddling and inconvenience in general?

I believe that no employee should ever feel the need for union membership, because they should feel that their employer looks after their best interests and is the one on whom they can depend for support and fairness.

 

Unions generate anti-establishment Luddite mindsets, and I have no time for that.

 

Leaving aside the sweeping generalisation which focuses on a stereotypical negative which is only partially true in some cases, to say that you would not employ a "leftie or union type" and would dismiss anyone who was, is idiotic pure and simple

 

I am not, and never have been, a "union type" but I have often had an "awkward attitude" with employers on my own and on behalf of others when required - and I've happily employed similar types when they were clearly the best people for the job

[Big time 10]

Talk about blinkin' stereotyping!!! I'm not in a union at the moment but have been in previous employment and am considered joining again.

 

The idea that there a 'union type' is a joke. Lumping everyone that belongs to a union as being militant, far left troublemakers does nothing but demonstrate ignorance and lack of intelligence IMO.

 

I can imagine the vast majority of people that join a union do so in good faith for perfectly good reasons, and perhaps shouldn't all be steriotyped; but its the anti-capitalist union leaders and many of the reps that have a well deserved bad reputation.

[Mecky 10]

I can imagine the vast majority of people that join a union do so in good faith for perfectly good reasons, and perhaps shouldn't all be steriotyped; but its the anti-capitalist union leaders and many of the reps that have a well deserved bad reputation.

 

Let's assume business leaders are capitalists and union leaders are anticapitalists ... what of it?

[MrSmith 10]

Employees in a unionised workplace that have chosen not to join the union are often resented by some of their colleagues that are union members, because the non-union members can of course reep the "benifits" that the union wins for the employees of the company even though they've not paid into the union.

 

I can understand why this causes some resentment, but isn't this attitude of the union members towards their non-union member colleagues akin to the capitalist approach, in as much as you as an individual get of of life what you put in, so if you dont join the union and pay into it you dont get the benefits of it?

 

They wouldn't be getting benefits from the union they would be getting benefits from their employer, the union doesn't pay their wages the employer does.

[gnvqsos 10]

Some people just don't want to support an organisation that is militant and left wing - should be their choice.

 

If an employee of mine joined a union he'd soon be out of a job.

 

Yeah but not many people want to be window cleaners.

[gnvqsos 10]

As I've already said, I wouldn't break the law. I wouldn't employ a union type in the first place, but if somebody went that way inclined, there would be other perfectly legal reasons to get rid.

 

Whats a union type-it sounds like an ailment.I suppose they have beards and a picture of Karl marks on their base

[tinfoilhat 11]

I know we are going off kilter on this thread but would you not hire someone if you noticed they had a bnp sticker on their car ? If you have alot of black or Asian employees the bnp guy is bound to be unpopular regardless of how good at his job he is. It's fast getting to the stage where you'd be better drawing out the names out of hat rather than say why you don't want hire someone.

[AJ sheffield 11]

Yeah but not many people want to be window cleaners.

 

Its just as well he's not a window cleaner then isn't it.