Union power

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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?

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

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.

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.

What would that look like for you?

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.

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.

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.

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!

Notana trouble is people do like to pik'n mix! They want the protection & benefits that unions and their long
and hard fought strength & history bring.. but it was won because of the Labour movement.

If you spoke to a union rep at the time they spoke about the governemt as "we"
Yes but WE are doing good in other areas. But WE are working towards XYZ etc..

They could not objectively take on board our shop floor criticisms or feedback of how the changes brought in under labour negatively impacted us. Or how inefficient and wasteful programs that labour had thrown money at were etc

The union should have been advocating for those of us on the shop floor not bleeting support for the party that was doing it to us.

I actually took a career break at that time. It became so hard to enjoy my job.

I do like my job FWIW.

A union that only fights certain governments is not fit for purpose

That makes no sense to me since my workplace, conditions and pay were most royally **ed under labour..

For many of us that would be a backward step. We need our unions, first & foremost, to be fighting for the well being of its members. That sometimes might mean a campaign against a government ( not just Tory) to ensure workers rights, h& s, conditions etc are not eroded. Because unions are rooted in socialism they also work in solidarity with working people all over the world.. it is an international movement.

Its bad that people feel they have to forego the insurance of union membership in order to have political integrity!

I am a union member (opting out of directly supporting labour) and it makes me feel like a hypocrite as I hate labour! So I could never get more involved, much as I would like to from the point of view of supporting and advocating for other workers

Which is why the two should separate PECS.

Ppl would feel able to get more active in their union at a local level if was less entangled with the labour party.

For ppl who want to be involved in both, be involved in both separately.

annie please take time to actually read my post. I am saying it is time for ALL money donated to political parties to be better scrutinised. Are you really a,Labour supporter?

No difference in capitalists making donates to unions making donations