Sensible Policies for a happier Britain - Unions

[voiceofsauron]

5, Unions should have no legal status. Currently in Britain recognised unions have a right to mass negotiate pay for all members of the union (and in some cases for non unionised workers as well). They can force employers to go to a binding arbitration service or in the final case call strike action. Employers may not take disciplinary action

Comments

[elethe]

I think actually the problem is some unions have more power than others. Most of them are toothless and ignored by employers. If they were all equally influential and had some sort of real power over the pay and conditions of their members and even the non-unionised workers then the situation should theoretically be good for all.

The trouble is unions like the RMT hold everyone else to ransom while most other unions really don't have that sort of power, so the people in other types of job resent all the money going to those particular workers.

It results in a very unequal situation for workers everywhere.

It is important workers have more power, I think, but presently only a few sectors enjoy that privilege - certainly no union I have belonged to has had any say whatsoever, even when the employers have been taken to court the union is still ignored.

[voiceofsauron]

Surely easier than making all unions equally powerful would be to make all unions powerless?

And is there any difference?

[elethe]

Yes - because people need protection and a sense that they have some sort of significance. After working in places without unions or with powerless unions I would rather have some sort of body campaigning on my behalf, which takes direction from its members. Not all employers are bastions of fairness - and if they can exploit they tend to, in my experience.

[amuchmoreexotic]

Labour isn't a commodity, because the labour of one person in a particular job is not always interchangeable with the labour of another person. Tube drivers have skills

[voiceofsauron]

Labour is a commodity. People who can do a job make up a market for that job. Employers will then consume that commodity paying the market price for it. If the commodity is in short supply (because there are only a small number of people who can or will do the job) then the amount that the commodity costs will go up.

The market isn't perfect because of the restriction of wage information (something I'm completely against by the way).

Unions should not be responsible for safety. That is why we have regulators.

What you're effectively saying is that a boss should be able to tell his workers to do dangerous work and fire them if they refuse.

I've neither implicitly or explicitly said this. However if the above did happen then the employee should have no problem sueing for wrongful dismissal.

Note I am not reducing the rights of any employee, I'm reducing the legal framework around unions.