Why are trade unions declining?

AndrewJRenko

FTA69 wrote: »

One thing that does concern me is the growth in the amount of professional lefties who have taken roles in some of our unions here (UK), that and Labour politicos who have never been on the tools in their lives or worked a low paid job suddenly walking into quite senior roles in policy and the like. A horrible right wing Labour figure here was made an Assistant General Secretary in the biggest union in the country and she’s never done a day’s tap in her life.

What exactly is the problem with 'professional lefties'? If you're going to work in a senior policy role, you're going to need a good grasp of economics, legislation, human resources and more - not exactly the kind of expertise you'll pick up on the factory floor.

I'm not quite sure that anyone working in politics has 'never done a tap' either, mind you.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope, that is not how it works. You are mistaken. The Unions tried to take positions on the board of our company without having been nominated by the Employees and expressly against the wishes of the Employees in my company. The employees had to fight their claim in the Courts to prevent them from taking seats on the board.
It was fought off by the employees and the Unions' influence on the Members Council is minimal now. It was real GoT skullduggery by the Unions.

I was referring to the Union's own ruling Council, which is made up of elected members voted into positions of power on the union itself.
I've never heard of any case of employee directors being appointed without going through the agreed nomination process.

ShagNastii wrote: »

Companies nowadays seriously couldn’t give a flying one about the unions. I’ve seen it myself in the company I work for (which has a solid union)

Some many things have come up that have had people and the union banging tables, the company didn’t care.

You're making a great argument for more hardcore tactics, like strike.

Didn't read thread fully this may have posted before

Packard Tallaght 1996, before factory was located to India there was a long and protracted Industrial Dispute between management and union.

The union took the management on head on.

It did not change anything for the workers in retrospect.

I was sad for the workers too.

bucketybuck

In my industry "union" is basically shorthand for "protecting the useless lazy and incompetent".

We do work for one large company with a number of sites/depots around the country. Almost all of their sites work fine, all except one that due to some legacy issues has a large group of unionized employees. That site is absolutely plagued by inefficient work practices and sheer bull**** caused by their staff intentionally causing trouble, playing stupid games and playing the union card to get way with all of it, just because they can.

Seen it repeatedly in this industry, used to do work for some of the councils as well and it was the same crap, useless men and women hiding behind unions and putting far more effort into avoiding work than they ever did into actually doing some work.

As far as I am concerned unions have become a byword for inefficiency and I personally will never have any part in one. Seeing them hold the country to ransom as they did with the LUAS drivers is just the cherry on top.

FTA69

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What exactly is the problem with 'professional lefties'? If you're going to work in a senior policy role, you're going to need a good grasp of economics, legislation, human resources and more - not exactly the kind of expertise you'll pick up on the factory floor.

I'm not quite sure that anyone working in politics has 'never done a tap' either, mind you.

The activist/ NGO-complex of left activists is often insular, culty and generally removed from working class life; most of them don’t even like working class people in my experience. One example, mate of mine works for a mid-size union and they hired this mad blue-hair academic in policy. She’s now running around trying to get reps training courses to have gender pronoun go-arounds and all this other divisive identity politics b*llocks. This sort of rubbish has absolutely poisoned the political left and it’ll undermine the union movement too if it’s allowed to take hold.

A specific example would be Emily Oldknow, someone who spent her years in the Labour Party scheming against Jeremy Corbyn, part of a cabal that actively worked against a Labour government being elected in 2017 and 2019; finally has to leave after being exposed and walks straight into a very senior union position (unelected) making decisions on behalf of hard pressed NHS staff and hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers despite having zero experience in those industries. Again, it’s the corporatisation of the union movement and it’s a bad thing.

Strumms

Bambi wrote: »

Because their subs are overpriced and they're generally useless. Run by lads like Brendan Ogle who just treat them as slush funds for their political nonsense.

They in my experience, all be it over a decade ago, are absolutely and unequivocally useless...As about as useful as a cock flavored lollipop..

When I could have done with a dig out in one situation they didn’t want to know, ‘politics’ I was told... then they had this moron in the next job assault me.. grabbing my arm and forcing a pen into it and onto paper for not wanting to fill in and sign a membership form there and then without reading it.... the signature would have given them several powers including taking the money from my salary...

AndrewJRenko

FTA69 wrote: »

The activist/ NGO-complex of left activists is often insular, culty and generally removed from working class life; most of them don’t even like working class people in my experience. One example, mate of mine works for a mid-size union and they hired this mad blue-hair academic in policy. She’s now running around trying to get reps training courses to have gender pronoun go-arounds and all this other divisive identity politics b*llocks. This sort of rubbish has absolutely poisoned the political left and it’ll undermine the union movement too if it’s allowed to take hold.

Ah, I get it now. Any woman with blue hair who wants to make union activities more inclusive is a problem for you. But if she a bloke in a flat cap, donkey jacket and coughing up coal dust from the mines, he'd be a grand lad altogether presumably.

FTA69 wrote: »

A specific example would be Emily Oldknow, someone who spent her years in the Labour Party scheming against Jeremy Corbyn, part of a cabal that actively worked against a Labour government being elected in 2017 and 2019; finally has to leave after being exposed and walks straight into a very senior union position (unelected) making decisions on behalf of hard pressed NHS staff and hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers despite having zero experience in those industries. Again, it’s the corporatisation of the union movement and it’s a bad thing.

I don't follow UK politics that closely now, so I've no idea about this lady or her history. I'm not sure what you mean by 'not elected'? No union full time roles are elected. The Council/board members are elected, the full-time employees aren't elected. Are you saying that having worked in front-line roles is an essential requirement for union representatives? What happens when the union rep changes job to a different union representing a different sector? It's a fairly silly proposition.

AndrewJRenko

bucketybuck wrote: »

In my industry "union" is basically shorthand for "protecting the useless lazy and incompetent".

We do work for one large company with a number of sites/depots around the country. Almost all of their sites work fine, all except one that due to some legacy issues has a large group of unionized employees. That site is absolutely plagued by inefficient work practices and sheer bull**** caused by their staff intentionally causing trouble, playing stupid games and playing the union card to get way with all of it, just because they can.

Sounds like some really weak management in place there

astrofool

FTA69 wrote: »

A specific example would be Emily Oldknow, someone who spent her years in the Labour Party scheming against Jeremy Corbyn, part of a cabal that actively worked against a Labour government being elected in 2017 and 2019; finally has to leave after being exposed and walks straight into a very senior union position (unelected) making decisions on behalf of hard pressed NHS staff and hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers despite having zero experience in those industries. Again, it’s the corporatisation of the union movement and it’s a bad thing.

Wasn't essentially the entire Labour party (especially the ministerial part) itself doing that? Unfair to single her out and ultimately proved right about Corbyn (though briefly reading reports, she does seem a piece of work, maybe they just wanted her on their side )

FTA69

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Ah, I get it now. Any woman with blue hair who wants to make union activities more inclusive is a problem for you. But if she a bloke in a flat cap, donkey jacket and coughing up coal dust from the mines, he'd be a grand lad altogether presumably.


I don't follow UK politics that closely now, so I've no idea about this lady or her history. I'm not sure what you mean by 'not elected'? No union full time roles are elected. The Council/board members are elected, the full-time employees aren't elected. Are you saying that having worked in front-line roles is an essential requirement for union representatives? What happens when the union rep changes job to a different union representing a different sector? It's a fairly silly proposition.

This is the great sleight of hand with this stuff, if you disagree with the specific prism of Americanised academic postmodernism then you’re automatically dismissing things like sexism or racism; it’s dishonest nonsense. Things like gender pronoun go arounds, privilege theory and all that craic don’t make things more inclusive - what they do is reinforce a social dynamic based on mutual suspicion; it’s anti solidarity in action. The bulk of the left has disappeared completely up its own arse with this stuff and now often resembles a farcical subculture as opposed to a movement for material change. If you want an example of this rubbish in action have a look at that video of the DSA conference in America, embarrassing themselves.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=moWe3rk7LzQ

If I’m training reps in the union I want them talking about solidarity and collective action, we don’t want them being harangued by someone just out of university into complying with weird scenist bullsh*t dynamics that are alienating and confusing to the vast majority of ordinary people.

As for union democracy, Assistant General Secretary is a huge role and one that should be elected; it is in many unions. Full time officers in the RMT are elected for instance. There is a pressing need for more democracy and participation in unions; while membership has halved the amount of full time officials has doubled and the union is viewed as an outside body as a result of this corporate drift.

If you see nothing wrong with a duplicitous, self-serving politico strolling into a senior role in a trade union after doing her level best to preserve the political status quo then I don’t know what to say to you.

AndrewJRenko

FTA69 wrote: »

This is the great sleight of hand with this stuff, if you disagree with the specific prism of Americanised academic postmodernism then you’re automatically dismissing things like sexism or racism; it’s dishonest nonsense. Things like gender pronoun go arounds, privilege theory and all that craic don’t make things more inclusive - what they do is reinforce a social dynamic based on mutual suspicion; it’s anti solidarity in action. The bulk of the left has disappeared completely up its own arse with this stuff and now often resembles a farcical subculture as opposed to a movement for material change. If you want an example of this rubbish in action have a look at that video of the DSA conference in America, embarrassing themselves.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=moWe3rk7LzQ

If I’m training reps in the union I want them talking about solidarity and collective action, we don’t want them being harangued by someone just out of university into complying with weird scenist bullsh*t dynamics that are alienating and confusing to the vast majority of ordinary people.

As for union democracy, Assistant General Secretary is a huge role and one that should be elected; it is in many unions. Full time officers in the RMT are elected for instance. There is a pressing need for more democracy and participation in unions; while membership has halved the amount of full time officials has doubled and the union is viewed as an outside body as a result of this corporate drift.

If you see nothing wrong with a duplicitous, self-serving politico strolling into a senior role in a trade union after doing her level best to preserve the political status quo then I don’t know what to say to you.

Which unions elect their AGS's?

FTA69

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Which unions elect their AGS's?

Off the top of my head? FBU, RMT and PCS. (Fire brigade, rail, civil service)

jimmycrackcorm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

As long as we have minimum wage jobs, such as those staff who look after our toddlers and our elderly parents, we'll have minimum wage employees. No one chooses minimum wage as a preference. Many people have limited options and limited opportunities and limited confidence.

That's true. But it's false narrative that somehow people are condemned to work in these jobs permanently.

AndrewJRenko

FTA69 wrote: »

Off the top of my head? FBU, RMT and PCS. (Fire brigade, rail, civil service)

So none in Ireland then? I'm still not sure why you hold it against this lady. She didn't make the rules for her own role.

Kermit.de.frog

Whenever this topic of unions comes up I always think of the auto workers in Detriot and the horrible fate of that city.

I think unions can be positive but when they have too much power it can be very destructive.

jimmycrackcorm

FTA69 wrote:

As for your second point; all of those things have everything to do with unions. How do you think they were achieved? Stuff like sick pay, the weekend, limits on the working day were won only via collective struggle by working people coming together to demand better. The likes of you back in the day would no doubt have been arguing against them and telling the plebs to be happy with their lot.

Unions had their place in the past when there were no laws to protect workers.

Aldi and Lidl have increased their wages voluntarily without any union pressure. It's different times.

But unions now are the cause of high public transport charges because somehow a Luas driver twiddling a joystick deserves a higher wage than a skilled nurse.

My father was a union rep in a pubic service job in the 70s and 80s. He did do some great work in improving conditions, as they were poorly paid when I was growing up. But I recall one thing also. He was part of a union delegation that successfully won a change for something in particular, but I remember thinking at the time, I didn't make sense. It has changed since, but if it still was in place today, it would be viewed as grossly inefficient.

Hodger

Exceltrup wrote: »

I know a few people in their 20s who are in typically union dominated industries, and it seems that youth membership is virtually non-existant. Why are unions declining?

As some people may or may know in some Industries when you get offered the job and get hired you have to sign a contract stating that you will not join a trade union.

And in other Industries or companies I should say any wind they get of people trying to Join a union they will find ways to get rid of you and force you out.

On the second point Im speaking from personal experience back when I was 19 in a place I was working part time at that time period. Two of my older co workers approached all the staff to talk about Joining a union some staff joined and some staff didn,t join in my own case I joined after I was approached as I agreed with them.

Shortly afterwards someone ratted on my two older co workers to management that they were trying to start a union they found an excuse to sack one of them while they gave the other person very short working hours to force them out. Not only did this person rat on my two co workers they also ratted on who attended one of the meetings in the union hall when management got wind of my two co workers were trying to do they called everyone into the office for a one to one talk asking if they joined the union I remember when they called me in I was asked why I attended the meeting in the union hall if I joined or not, but after management found by the person who ratted that I attended the meeting in the union hall they also put me and others on very short hours too to force me and others out.

jimmycrackcorm

Wanderer78 wrote:

Common across the western world, particularly since the neoliberal era, demonising union movements has worked, it can clearly be seen here to, particularly with public sector unions. And what have workers gotten from this? Only lower wage inflation, significant increase in the precariousness of employment and productivity levels, it's worked out well for us I guess!

The HSE needs serious reform. When the health boards amalgamated, where were the improvements in deduplication of resources? The HSE only needs a quarter of the HR people and a significant reduction in animation staff.

And that's before you get to demarcation where you aren't allowed to change a lightbulb in case some one who's job it is to do so might lose that job.

Who is blocking reform of our health system so that it works for the people it serves?

Over recent decades we've seen a reduction in union membership but in contrast an improvement in salaries and working conditions for people who work in non unionized employment such as IT.
Our standards of living have increased massively in my working life since the 80's.

The neoliberal element you despise is what allowed us cheap Ryanair travel instead of the £600 flight tickets we used to have to fly to London

Hodger

Hodger wrote: »

... but after management found by the person who ratted that I attended the meeting in the union hall they also put me and others on very short hours too to force me and others out.

That's crazy, hard to stomach that.


^^^ the above is clearly wrong and I'd support going as far as industrial action in the above case. Management abused their position there.


And then the following poster mentioned demarcation. That's where you get the flip side and unions start to abuse their power (and damage the reputation of unions in general).


Within the space of two posts we see an example of the worst of both sides.

Mules

Workers have a lot more rights now than when unions were bigger. I think that's why the membership has declined.

corks finest

Exceltrup wrote: »

I know a few people in their 20s who are in typically union dominated industries, and it seems that youth membership is virtually non-existant. Why are unions declining?

T union's are bent in the main since the 80s , personal experience ,not all obviously but too cosy cosy for decades with employers and their rep's in government,look at labour FFS spent force fir selling their souls

mariaalice

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Whenever this topic of unions comes up I always think of the auto workers in Detriot and the horrible fate of that city.

I think unions can be positive but when they have too much power it can be very destructive.

The American auto industry would have declined anyway. There is a lot of blaming the unions for things that would have happened anyway low skilled manufacturing is declining in high-wage economies its nothing to do with unions.

It would be interesting to know what the union situation is in new pharma companies in Ireland particularly for those above semi-skilled level.

Wanderer78

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

Who is blocking reform of our health system so that it works for the people it serves?

Yes I agree, health system reforms are indeed being impeded by union resistance, but this is largely due to the outcomes of deunionisation of the workforce in its entirety, 'every force has an opposite and equal reaction', I.e. it is a reaction to this movement.

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

Over recent decades we've seen a reduction in union membership but in contrast an improvement in salaries and working conditions for people who work in non unionized employment such as IT. Our standards of living have increased massively in my working life since the 80's.

Again, you must look at the bigger picture, this is where these ideologies start to collapse, as a whole, wage inflation has in fact collapsed for many, many in fact have been experiencing stagnant wages, more or less over this period. Working conditions have in fact declined for many, there's been a significant increase in the precariousness of employment, zero hour etc, yet productivity levels across most sectors have increased, many significantly so.

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

The neoliberal element you despise is what allowed us cheap Ryanair travel instead of the £600 flight tickets we used to have to fly to London

Yes not all has been negative, but again the bigger picture is regularly lost in such statements, working conditions of many in the travel industry have declined considerably, and again, wage inflation remains low for many in the sector.

And once again, the bigger picture, our environmental issues have escalated during this period, substantially, along with other critical needs for all, I.e. housing, health care, political and democratic needs, etc etc etc.

All of these so called 'gains' have in fact been backed by one of the most unstable mechanisms, 'debt', and 08 was a wake up call, only we decided the best thing to do was change virtually nothing in relation to it, and rolled over and went straight back to sleep, so watch this space! Oh and Ryanairs 'successes' are also wrapped up in this debt story to, so.......

Low wage inflation mentioned without reference to low inflation in the economy. :rolleyes:

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Low wage inflation mentioned without reference to low inflation in the economy. :rolleyes:

yes because one of the main attributes of the neoliberal era has been to be largely reliant on the value of assets, in order to create inflation, and it has failed

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yes because one of the main attributes of the neoliberal era has been to be largely reliant on the value of assets, in order to create inflation, and it has failed

The who and what now? I'm just a simple working man... your lingo is way beyond me.

Topgear on Dave

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Yes I agree, health system reforms are indeed being impeded by union resistance, but this is largely due to the outcomes of deunionisation of the workforce in its entirety, 'every force has an opposite and equal reaction', I.e. it is a reaction to this movement.

What?

The health unions and various other vested interests won't give in because I have no union in my manufacturing company? Come on now :pac:

end of the road

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Unions had their place in the past when there were no laws to protect workers.

Aldi and Lidl have increased their wages voluntarily without any union pressure. It's different times.

But unions now are the cause of high public transport charges because somehow a Luas driver twiddling a joystick deserves a higher wage than a skilled nurse.

My father was a union rep in a pubic service job in the 70s and 80s. He did do some great work in improving conditions, as they were poorly paid when I was growing up. But I recall one thing also. He was part of a union delegation that successfully won a change for something in particular, but I remember thinking at the time, I didn't make sense. It has changed since, but if it still was in place today, it would be viewed as grossly inefficient.

the existence of law does not negate the need for unions as such laws need enforcement and the union is generally the best way to do it.
not to mention there will be employers who will try and skirt around the law.
luas and other transport fares are the way they are because government want the passenger to pay the greater share of paying for the service, they would be the same rate even if drivers were on no wages.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's crazy, hard to stomach that.


^^^ the above is clearly wrong and I'd support going as far as industrial action in the above case. Management abused their position there.


And then the following poster mentioned demarcation. That's where you get the flip side and unions start to abuse their power (and damage the reputation of unions in general).


Within the space of two posts we see an example of the worst of both sides.

no, we only see 1 example of disgusting behaviour and that is from the company that poster worked for which should be out of business tbh.
demarcation is not a big deal, it protects workers from being forced to take on extra work without their agreement, extra work that wouldn't be in their remit.

Disband the union and see what happens. Lot of behind the scenes stuff and management messing stopped before it starts

Dyr

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If they are currently coming through the ranks, then they're not full time union reps. They only have one full time job - either public sector or union rep - not both.

The union is as strong or as weak as its membership.

Oh right so theres no paid employees who are full time union reps in the public or private sector in Ireland, shows what you know anyway


Unions like to come out with as the "only as strong as their members" nonsense but the truth is that they're as strong as the demand for membership, which is dead outside of the public sector.

Like any human organisation its actually only strong as its leadership, you have leaders like Jimmy Kelly and his heir apparent Brendan Ogle, then theres that eejit Len McCluskey in the UK, lads who couldnt sell ice in the sahara but they're all whats running the union game.