Union power

This is because the only people who feel they can take up positions in the union are die hard labour fans in the first place!

I suppose I agree to a certain point notanan some more centrist Labour governments did lose their way and became indistinguishable from the opposition! Unions should always put needs of workers first.

The labour party has changed. The needs of workers have changed. Unions need to change and let go of archaic ties in order to be fit for purpose in the present tense.

PECS I am absolutely horrified that you should be so dismissive of those union members who do not share your political views. Your post just demonstrates how necessary it is that the link between the unions and the Labour party is severed.

Membership of the Unions has declined from 13.2 million in 1979 to 5.6 in 2017. The reason for a lot of that is the decline in the great mass membership heavy industries; mining, Iron and Steel manufacture. ship building etc, but a lot has been because of the failure of unions to recruit in the new IT and technical industries.

In the face of that you write dismissively, Those who only join a union as an insurance policy may not have the same involvement as others who join to be part of a movement.

Are you really suggesting that the only people who have the welfare of fellow workers and social protection at the heart of their value system are members of the Labour movement? How narrow minded.

There are many people who are concerned about the future of social welfare, those who are disadvantaged and the future of the country who either support other political parties or no political party at all. I think, not only would union membership increase if the link with Labour was broken but that a whole new generation of non-politically committed union activists would come forward to run the union first and foremost for its members, lobbying all parties on issues directly affecting their members at work and at home.

What would that look like for you?

Its a ridiculous rationalle IMO. A lot of modern medicine owes its origins to experiments carried out on slaves and prisoners of war... we can have the medical advances that resulted without continuing to support the circumstances of the origins.

Labour is IMO not a force for good. That doesnt mean we cant learn anything from the history and pick out those good bits and take them forward!

Just because unions originally grew out of labour does not mean that we cant have labour free unions going forward.

Gosh please do not put your thoughts into my words M0nica It is true that some members of unions take no interst in the union unless they need it. Other members participate in the wider aspects of Union membership .
No different from being a WI member and choosing only to go to the monthly meeting and not in any other activities. Individual choice. Judgement not made by me, only by you.

I am frankly sick and tired of PRESENT TENSE labour getting a free pass on the back of past labour parties. They bear very little comparison, which is why I am an EX labour supporter!

"You have to support labour if you support the NHS because labour started it"
No. THIS labour did not
"You have to suport labour if you want unions because they started it"
Again, no! THIS labour did not.

Its like some bratty kid expecting honours and adoration because their PARENT did good work

Listen, I am very open to debate. I asked what I felt was a fair question.
Re your analogy with medical advancements and past abhorrent practices what exatly did the Union movement do that equates to those horrors you raised?

Individual choice.
No it is not!
It is not a "choice" if people who oppose labour feel unable to join or to be more involved. The more active positions ARE only for labour supporters and are not open to the rest of us.
It may not be a written exclusion...but its an invisible barrier that everyone knows exist, and you know it!

Re your analogy with medical advancements and past abhorrent practices what exatly did the Union movement do that equates to those horrors you raised?

It is the LABOUR movement that O find abhorrent.
I believe there is a place for unions definitely, but they need to break old historic ties. Lots of things break association with their origins in order to be fit for purpose going foward, that was my point re medical research.

One could say the same for very many organisations. There have been some terrible times in Labour history that I would not support. I am not a " blind" follower. However I could never vote Conservative and I am a believer in the good thatvunions have and can still do.
I am very interested in the growing progressive politics movement which is quite active locally and growing fast as people, here in traditional Tory heartland, are seeing the reality & impact of current policies on their livlihood and quality of life.

I have known some union officers who were not Labour supporters!

PECs see your post timed 15:48 today
You KNOW that in order to be more involved you have to either be a labour supporter, or at least be okay with the labour ties even if you dont always vote labour yourself.
This will exclude a lot of people who would otherwise join/get involved.

M0nica Quote[ The place for the unions is in the workplace, especially in the current situation, where so many people have zero hours contracts and more work in the gig economy. ]End Quote

M0nica, I would agree that the first priority for any trade union is for the protection of workers and to seek for better terms and conditions when possible for those workers.

In the above, of recent times the leading unions have changed their strategy from being relying on workplace organisation for their influence to using the courts to promote the interests of working people.

What has been witnessed would be that there have been several major achievements brought about as the Unite and GMB unions secured three major court victories over companies who use the Gig Economy in the employment of people. Although that legal process is not entirely at an end at this point in time, should the GMB win the final stage at the Supreme Court, then much will change for the one in five workers that have to try to earn a living through the Gig Economy.

In the above, one organisation this week has started to offer workers it had always employed on Gig Economy terms, holiday pay, some sick pay and for the first time limited guaranteed hours. All the foregoing has come about in front of the Supreme Court making a final ruling on Gig Economy employment terms.

As I have stated in a separate thread, the above I believe is bringing into question the trade unions commitment to financially support this "squabbling parliamentary Labour Party" into the future in the way that they have for over one hundred years. There are other factors at play in that situation, but new thinking and strategy is now very much forward in the trade unions agenda.

However, let us not forget that Britains trade union structure has survived numerous anti-trade union parliamentary bills brought in by the Thatcher and Major governments designed to destroy the unions and in that the entire labour movement in the country including the Labour Party.

However, the commitment of rank and file activist in their workplaces both past and present have prevented that destruction. That stated, for the first time in many years something very very beneficial is now in front of those activists and with that a large section of the British economy.

DD was a union member and was at one point a shop steward. Her interest did not go beyond that level because she knew that, if she did want to go further, she had to be committed to the Labour Party politically, and she wasn't and did not want to be as her political allegiances lay elsewhere,

She is not a union member now because she made a major career change and her previous union is not in the same industry sector and where she is now there is no union presence. She is a new joiner in a new career in a new profession and is having to work to hard to establish herself, to want to be involved in establishing a union branch locally, but were there one there she would join.

I might add DS is also a union member - and an active one as well.

notanan2, in regard to your post @15:58 today, a union member does not have to become involved with the politics of the union. Indeed, those politics do not normally come to the fore until any member gets elected to district or Reginal Committee level, or as a delicate to the union's annual conference.

Should a member just wish to engage at his/her trade sector level, then they can engage with their branch whether that be at district or trade sector, and put themselves forward for trade conferences or education courses as takes their interest. Or just take an interest in branch matters.

Thatcher curbed union power following the collapse of the Heath government and the Callaghan government which was caused by the public being totally cheesed of with the strikes , miners, postal workers, power cuts, rubbish piled in the streets causing rats to scuttle around pavements, the dead couldn’t be buried

Grandad that restricts the part a non-labour member can play in the running of their union. Once District level looms, commit to Labour or go no further. You could almost call that restraint of trade. It is certainly discrimination against those not professing one particular political allegiance, which is just the kind of thing that the unions should be opposing. That is why the link between the Labour party and the unions needs to be broken.

Grandad1943 as I stated it is not a written rule, but when people are forgoing even being members and getting cover because of the labour links it is clearly an issue that it also felt by non labour supporting members, who would not necessarily be prohibited from involvement but none the less feel unable to increase or progress their involvement.

I know the discussion has moved on a bit, but I was struck by this:

the unions were formed to fight for workers not to run the country

I'd like to know, annie, who do you think should run the country?

Because I think that this is a much bigger topic than just repeating myths abut the 1970s.

M0nica, as with all trades unions it is the members who set the policies whether that be industrial or political.

All any member has to do if that person does not like any policy of the Union is to put themselves forward for election to the various committees or conferences that make up the unions structure and fight for change. If enough other members then agree with their views, on ballot the policies will change.

That is the whole ethos of the trade union movement, to fight for change, and members must engage if they wish to see that, externally or internally.

Er, I thought you just said those (Labour) politics do not normally come to the fore until any member gets elected to district or Reginal Committee level, or as a delicate to the union's annual conference.

The strikes in the seventies are a myth Mazie ? Ask your parents if you were too small to understand what damage all those strikes caused .

I expect an elected government to run the country , we are not a communist country , yet