Is A Strong Trade Union Movement Essential For Democracy?

[Opinionated]

Thread started from the thread Should Britain Become A Republic.

Yes a strong TU movement is essential for democracy, without it there can be no true universal representation.

[LA]

I will however agree that it is a travesty that poverty is such a bar to a seat in power in the states, but that's what happens when you have very little in the way of a politicised work force, a strong Trade Union movement can help prevent that!

wait what?
You want to return to the days where the UNDEMOCRATIC UNELECTED trade unions controlled the state? The same trade unions that brought Britain to standstill and threatened its destruction.
The same unions who do not care for the wider British public, but their members?

What a contrast. A minute ago you were talking about democracy.

[Opinionated]

wait what?
You want to return to the days where the UNDEMOCRATIC UNELECTED trade unions controlled the state? The same trade unions that brought Britain to standstill and threatened its destruction.
The same unions who do not care for the wider British public, but their members?

TU members are part of the British public. However I am not sure how to address your rather ragged trousered, stiff armed, grass stuffed argument accept to say THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID (wrote). Trade Union sponsered MPs were the first working class members of Parliament, without a strong TU tradition in this country Parliament would still be 600+ Cameron clones!

What a contrast. A minute ago you were talking about democracy.

Why do you think Trade Unionism is undemocratic?

[LA]

So do they, just that it requires a democratic process to do so and means that the government cannot change it to suit it's own needs (no right to silence in GB for example)!

No, they have a rigid inflexible constitution which requires unanimity to altar it. This can take a lot of time.

With our system, the constitution can be changed when needed quickly.

How'd you figure that? Our laws are created by judicial precedent just as much as in America.
Why would they have the power to undermine the legislature? Only if a proposed bill were unconstitutional!

Right now Judges can create Judicial Precedent, however, they cannot actively decline the wishes of the legislature or executive.

They can indicate that the Legislation will cause problems, they can indicate that the Legislation conflicts with other legislation. However, they cannot strop it becoming law.

In America, Judges can do this - That undermines Parliament.

Indeed, which is why I favour appointment, however LA how many law lords are from working class backgrounds? Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, o no; Saville of Newdigate, no not either! Give up? None is the answer!

I like the way you just chose law lords... However, my original point stands. They were selected based on merit.

If you look at the other courts, there are many judges from many backgrounds.

Where do the Law Lords sit LA? What happens to them once they leave our supreme court? No potential problems there with patronage is there?

The judges sit in a committee room in the House of Lords.
They have no legislative function what so ever - They cannot propose or altar legislation neither can they vote upon it*.

The new supreme court which is being constructed [due for October] is merely designed to remove the confusion. Nothing more.

*Personally I believe they should sit in the House of Lords and should be allowed to amend/propose and vote upon legislation.

Hence saying Basing a new system on America would be no bad thing, not copying America! I agree more power should be devolved locally.

Or remove PM power and empower local communities.
Politically entrench initiatives...

You don't need systematic reform neither should we copy or base a system on America.

Well we disagree religion has no place in the law, and being part of the establishment also limits the church detrimentally.

How does it limit the church?

Yes and then groups of shop workers, miners and dockers got together and sponsered a candidate to represent them in parliament! You still need money to run LA!

Yes but what happened?
The Unions crushed the UK...
Winter of Discontent
Continuous Strikes...

Required the work of a fantastic women by the name of Margaret Thatcher to correct the situation...

but why do you think Trade Unionism is undemocratic?

Trade Unions benefit only those workers who are a member of the Trade Union at the cost of workers, businesses, consumers and shareholders outside.

The Unions hold society to ransom by strike action that results in the huge disruption to public services that we are witnessing now.

One more point for good measure...
Unions also lead to increases in costs - salaries, benefits and operational expenses - for businesses across the board.

[Opinionated]

Trade Unions benefit only those workers who are a member of the Trade Union at the cost of workers, businesses, consumers and shareholders outside.

Good job those other groups have people to represent their interests too isn't it?

The Unions hold society to ransom by strike action that results in the huge disruption to public services that we are witnessing now.

One more point for good measure...
Unions also lead to increases in costs - salaries, benefits and operational expenses - for businesses across the board.

Or to look at it from a different angle, the TU movement has led to the workers being given decent pay and working conditions which in turn has created a whole new group of consumers adding to the economy.

[LA]

Good job those other groups have people to represent their interests too isn't it?
I will consider starting a new thread on why Trade Unions are an aid to democracy LA, but lets get back on topic here!

I am not saying Trade Unions are a bad thing, I am merely highlighting the huge complications they have caused and why Thatcher was a necessary force.

[ERNESTO]

Liberal Authoritarion
:Trade Unions benefit only those workers who are a member of the Trade Union at the cost of workers, businesses, consumers and shareholders outside.

The Unions hold society to ransom by strike action that results in the huge disruption to public services that we are witnessing now.

I have worked my entire adult life. 1966 - 1973 I worked in a none-union sweat-shop in the printing industry where we were worked like donkeys and payed a pittance. There were 3 apprentice printers to 2 journeymen, (the industry norm at the time was 1 apprentice to 14 journeymen). Accidents, thankfully not serious, were commonplace. Equipment was antiquated and not properly maintained.
1973 - 1998 I was able to join a trade union at my next employer who recognized the value of employees being allowed representation. The union negotiated amongst many other things on pension rights (I currently receive a handsome pension from this previous employer). If it were not for the trade union, which I'm still a member of in my current employment, I would be a lot worse off than I am now. Instead, I own my 4 bed detached home outright and enjoy a good standard of living, thanks to my hard work, forsight and most of all thanks to my trade union. During all this time I have never been on strike. Employees who choose not to join the union when a Trade Union has an agreement with their employer giving sole negotiation rights to that union do not miss out when it comes to receiving the benefits negotiated. I would defend their right not to join the union and also to receive the negotiated benefits, but nevertheless their behaviour is parasitical.

To come back on topic, Mrs Thatcher whilst busy decimating Britain's industrial base, also found time to invoke the royal prerogative to remove a persons right to join a trade union at G.C.H.Q. A president would have been able to stop this unnecessarily draconian measure. Everyone should have the right to membership, or the right not to be a member, of a trade union without hindrance from a politician.

[Major Sinic]

To come back on topic, Mrs Thatcher whilst busy decimating Britain's industrial base, also found time to invoke the royal prerogative to remove a persons right to join a trade union at G.C.H.Q. A president would have been able to stop this unnecessarily draconian measure. Everyone should have the right to membership, or the right not to be a member, of a trade union without hindrance from a politician.

What makes you think that a President would have wished to prevent a measure which put the security of the nation above the rights of workers who, it could be argued, were being politically manipulated by their leaders, whose national loyalty could not be relied upon.

You talk about Mrs Thatcher's decimation of Britain's industrial base. This is one side of the coin. The other side of that coin is that the country was being brought economically to its knees by politically motivated trade union action. It had little to do with workers rights, and more to do with trade union control of our society, and none more so than the extremism of the National Union of Mineworkers.

The demise of the mines was economically inevitable. Had the Union worked with the National Coal Board, thousands more jobs would have been retained for much longer. Arthur Scargill and his lieutenants, set out to bring down an elected government, using their gullible members as their troops. Had he succeeded, our democracy, flawed though it is, would have been under serious threat.

The level of civil violence on the part of the miners, was on the verge of armed revolution, not just against the police, but against their own colleagues, especially in the Nottinghamshire coal fields.

I for one am grateful that we had a Prime Minister who had the courage to break the power of the militant tendency within the Trade Unions, and save our country from such anarchy. Margaret Thatcher led a government which had been democratically elected. The NUM and other militant unions were not democratically elected by the people of this country.

[ERNESTO]

What makes you think that a President would have wished to prevent a measure which put the security of the nation above the rights of workers who, it could be argued, were being politically manipulated by their leaders, whose national loyalty could not be relied upon.

You talk about Mrs Thatcher's decimation of Britain's industrial base. This is one side of the coin. The other side of that coin is that the country was being brought economically to its knees by politically motivated trade union action. It had little to do with workers rights, and more to do with trade union control of our society, and none more so than the extremism of the National Union of Mineworkers.

The demise of the mines was economically inevitable. Had the Union worked with the National Coal Board, thousands more jobs would have been retained for much longer. Arthur Scargill and his lieutenants, set out to bring down an elected government, using their gullible members as their troops. Had he succeeded, our democracy, flawed though it is, would have been under serious threat.

The level of civil violence on the part of the miners, was on the verge of armed revolution, not just against the police, but against their own colleagues, especially in the Nottinghamshire coal fields.

I for one am grateful that we had a Prime Minister who had the courage to break the power of the militant tendency within the Trade Unions, and save our country from such anarchy. Margaret Thatcher led a government which had been democratically elected. The NUM and other militant unions were not democratically elected by the people of this country.

It depends on your political standpoint how you view Arthur Scargill's and Mrs Thatcher's places in history. I see Scargill as a defender of the miners communities and Thatcher as the right wing establishment personified who would sacrifice any workers rights on the altar of profit. This was also done on the railways with disastorous consequences. Give me true democracy, (republicanism), any time rather than rampant politicians, of whichever persuasion, wreaking their own brand of idealogical havoc.

[ERNESTO]

MAJOR SYNIC What makes you think that a President would have wished to prevent a measure which put the security of the nation above the rights of workers who, it could be argued, were being politically manipulated by their leaders, whose national loyalty could not be relied upon.

Representation in the workplace would be a right which would be enshrined in a republican constitution. There was no evidence of reds under the bed at GCHQ and no evidence that the security of the nation was under threat. These were just ordinary working people doing their duty for their country and betrayed into the bargain by Mrs thatcher.

[Major Sinic]

Representation in the workplace would be a right which would be enshrined in a republican constitution. There was no evidence of reds under the bed at GCHQ and no evidence that the security of the nation was under threat. These were just ordinary working people doing their duty for their country and betrayed into the bargain by Mrs thatcher.

How do you know that there was no evidence of communist threat to national security? This type of thing isn't routinely published for all to read about.

As you said in your previous post it all depends on your political viewpoint. The rights and wrongs of the NUM and King Arthur (do note he wasn't nicknamed President Arthur ) and the Tories and Mrs T still have the ability to raise passions. I personally think Mrs Thatcher was our greatest post war Prime Minister, and consider that her positive achievements far outweighed her negative ones.

[ERNESTO]

Major Synic -How do you know that there was no evidence of communist threat to national security? This type of thing isn't routinely published for all to read about.

I don't know of course, but I fail to see why an entire workforce should have their rights denied them for the sins of a few, far better to bring any miscreants to account.

[Major Sinic]

I don't know of course, but I fail to see why an entire workforce should have their rights denied them for the sins of a few, far better to bring any miscreants to account.

Whilst I fully understand your viewpoint, and understand why you might hold it, I do not agree with it.

Each employee accepted employment at GCHQ aware that they could not join a trade union at that point. That there was subsequently a move to introduce union representation was a change in their employment contracts which their employer, the government, rejected on the basis that the resulting increased risk of compromising national security was unacceptable.

There is a sensitive balance to be achieved between national security and the rights of the individual, and this balance would need to be maintained under a republic just as much as under a ceremonial monarchy.

[ERNESTO]

Major Synic - Each employee accepted employment at GCHQ aware that they could not join a trade union at that point. That there was subsequently a move to introduce union representation was a change in their employment contracts which their employer, the government, rejected on the basis that the resulting increased risk of compromising national security was unacceptable.

There is a sensitive balance to be achieved between national security and the rights of the individual, and this balance would need to be maintained under a republic just as much as under a ceremonial monarchy.

Major Sinic - I was unaware that each GCHQ employee accepted employment on the understanding that they could not join a trade union and that this was in their employment contracts so I withdraw my comment. I also agree that even under a republic there would still be a sensitive balance needed between national security and the rights of the individual. What worries me slightly is why "proper" union representation is seen as a threat to national security.

[Opinionated]

Each employee accepted employment at GCHQ aware that they could not join a trade union at that point. That there was subsequently a move to introduce union representation was a change in their employment contracts which their employer, the government, rejected on the basis that the resulting increased risk of compromising national security was unacceptable.

There is a sensitive balance to be achieved between national security and the rights of the individual, and this balance would need to be maintained under a republic just as much as under a ceremonial monarchy.

I could be wrong, but your post seems to suggest that a Trade Union will always encourage extreme Left Wing policy, why would that be the case? Surely freedom of association is a fundamental human right, or at least should be!

[LA]

I could be wrong, but your post seems to suggest that a Trade Union will always encourage extreme Left Wing policy, why would that be the case? Surely freedom of association is a fundamental human right, or at least should be!

Freedom of association should be a protected right, however, holding a state to ransom is unacceptable.

Look at these recent postal strikes. They are striking over pay and modernisation. In my view, they have no right to strike.

They are lucky they have jobs, they are lucky they have a stable income. Allow me to remind you, that thousands are losing their jobs, they would give a lot for a job even with severely reduced pay.

If we had the Trade Unions with the strength they had pre-Thatcher, this country would be in an even worse economic position because the Unions would cripple our eventual recover in order to secure more pay for their members; who in my opinion at this current time, are unbelievably selfish.

They should get on with the work and be damn happy they have a job.

[Major Sinic]

I could be wrong, but your post seems to suggest that a Trade Union will always encourage extreme Left Wing policy, why would that be the case? Surely freedom of association is a fundamental human right, or at least should be!

It was not my intention to suggest that a Trade Union will always or even usually encourage extreme left wing policy, and I do not hold that view so my apologies for giving that impression. There is an essential need for Trade Unions in our society, and responsible worker representation is to be respected. I believe that it predominantly exists today.

I think that the current political environment is very different to almost thirty years ago when hard right and left wing politics formed the prevailing political landscape, and a number of Trade Unions went beyond their traditional role of representing their members employment interests, and challenged the elected government of the day through violent confrontation, secondary picketing, worker intimidation and abuse etc. I found this unacceptable then and on reflection still do.

[Streetwalker]

Im all for workers rights,I was a shop steward for 10 years but the trade unions are power crazy socialists and a cash cow for the labour party.I gave the position up due to pressure (I was asked to vote in a certain way) that was alien to my beliefs and the benefit of my work mates.

Lets all go on strike for three months for an extra £1 an hour that will take 20 years to get back and create missery to millions of people

WHOS THE BRAINS BEHIND THIS OUTFIT?

[ERNESTO]

I too, until recently, was a trade union representative and always tried to conduct myself responsibly. That is what trade unions elected officers should do. I don't believe strong trade unions are a prerequisite of a democracy, rather, responsible trade unions should be.

[Streetwalker]

I too, until recently, was a trade union representative and always tried to conduct myself responsibly. That is what trade unions elected officers should do. I don't believe strong trade unions are a prerequisite of a democracy, rather, responsible trade unions should be.

Yes agreed ,but can they be trusted to be responsible. Sadly the answer is too often .....No

[Midas]

It was not my intention to suggest that a Trade Union will always or even usually encourage extreme left wing policy, and I do not hold that view so my apologies for giving that impression. There is an essential need for Trade Unions in our society, and responsible worker representation is to be respected. I believe that it predominantly exists today.

I think that the current political environment is very different to almost thirty years ago when hard right and left wing politics formed the prevailing political landscape, and a number of Trade Unions went beyond their traditional role of representing their members employment interests, and challenged the elected government of the day through violent confrontation, secondary picketing, worker intimidation and abuse etc. I found this unacceptable then and on reflection still do.

Although we tend to discourage trade unions in our company, believing (from experience years ago before I joined the board) that they can be far more disruptive than beneficial, I would agree that provided they are managed responsibly they can be an asset where some negotiations involving large numbers of workers are concerned. What certainly isn't responsible is the overly prescriptive job delineation that we used to see, nor the blanket demands for increased pay irrespective of individual performance, often backed up by threats of strike action.

As to whether they encourage democracy is a different matter; they are really just another form of representative democracy where individual members are forced to accept whatever vote the leadership may demand. As with any such form of 'democracy', the reality is that the majority of members might well disagree with what their leadership demands, in which case they can they could be compared more to mini-dictatorships than anything.

[ERNESTO]

Yes agreed ,but can they be trusted to be responsible. Sadly the answer is too often .....No

Unfortunately you are right. Perhaps someone other than the trade-union should have an input into the training of workplace representatives. The training that I received was unimpressive to say the least. Nevertheless, people in the workplace should be entitled to representation of some sort.

[Scooby]

I think the irresponsibility is starting to show, the post office strike is a case in point, unfortunately modernisation is essential, but from what i saw last weekend, the deal was struck and then a couple of London branches decided they didn't like it and off we went again. The trouble is that post office employees are only damaging themselves, i work for a small family firm, our post bill isn't huge, but does come into 10 - 15k band, this includes routine mail and deliveries to our customers. We now have a contract with a private provider, the cost is broadly the same and their customer services team cover form 0700 -1900. Personally i like the idea of the Royal Mail, but i have a workforce of my own to consider and had i put up with the current situation, then i would be losing work and it would have jeopardised the job security of my staff at a time when we are fighting for every contract we can get.
The unions have a place in the structure but they need to remember, if their members have no jobs then they have no union, they will have precious little public support if they hold the public to ransom over Christmas, or if the private providers expand to do household mail.

[ERNESTO]

I think the irresponsibility is starting to show, the post office strike is a case in point, unfortunately modernisation is essential, but from what i saw last weekend, the deal was struck and then a couple of London branches decided they didn't like it and off we went again. The trouble is that post office employees are only damaging themselves, i work for a small family firm, our post bill isn't huge, but does come into 10 - 15k band, this includes routine mail and deliveries to our customers. We now have a contract with a private provider, the cost is broadly the same and their customer services team cover form 0700 -1900. Personally i like the idea of the Royal Mail, but i have a workforce of my own to consider and had i put up with the current situation, then i would be losing work and it would have jeopardised the job security of my staff at a time when we are fighting for every contract we can get.
The unions have a place in the structure but they need to remember, if their members have no jobs then they have no union, they will have precious little public support if they hold the public to ransom over Christmas, or if the private providers expand to do household mail.

The best course of action is for this dispute to go to arbitration, and that arbitration should be binding on both parties.

[DC]

No, but it does help.

This is a recurring problem in Unions around the world, they're becoming involved in political issues that don't relate to workers. IMO Unions should only ever use or threaten industrial action when their reasons are to do with workers rights as workers, not general citizens.

[Midas]

This is a recurring problem in Unions around the world, they're becoming involved in political issues that don't relate to workers. IMO Unions should only ever use or threaten industrial action when their reasons are to do with workers rights as workers, not general citizens.

I'd go even further than that and say their right to strike was only legally valid within a single company, not across an entire industry, and only then if it was for a genuine industrial grievance, supported by a majority of workers after it had been to arbitration, but without success.

[SocialistCara]

I'd go even further than that and say their right to strike was only legally valid within a single company, not across an entire industry, and only then if it was for a genuine industrial grievance, supported by a majority of workers after it had been to arbitration, but without success.

i disagree, i think it is every workers right to strike through a whole industry for any reason at all ( with notable exeptions i.e a dislike of a boss ) but i do agree that it should be supported by a majority of workers.

[Streetwalker]

i disagree, i think it is every workers right to strike through a whole industry for any reason at all ( with notable exeptions i.e a dislike of a boss ) but i do agree that it should be supported by a majority of workers.

Strike action is IMO an own goal for the workers,disarster for the Company and a result for Union bosses.

I have seen the militants at work,coercing ,threatening ,shouting and screaming.Its not a pretty sight.The "them and us" mentality is not the way Unions or indeed companies should work.

[Midas]

i disagree, i think it is every workers right to strike through a whole industry for any reason at all ( with notable exeptions i.e a dislike of a boss ) but i do agree that it should be supported by a majority of workers.

No, it should not be anyone's right at all to disrupt the lives and work of others. For anything other than the reasons I've given elsewhere - a real last ditch stand if their pay or terms and conditions are outside the norms for their trade or industry and negotiations with the company concerned have reached an impasse and at least the first round of independent arbitration has not produced the required changes - strikes should be illegal. On the wider scale, strikes do far more damage to both industry and commerce and to industrial and social relations than they do good.

[Marxist Nutter]

I'm sure we've done this one before, as I remember pointing out how the far left are often anti the trade union movement.

[SocialistCara]

No, it should not be anyone's right at all to disrupt the lives and work of others... strikes should be illegal.

No, it is a fundamental right of workers to strike and as for strikes should be illegal...i think that is the action of a far right government.

[Barry]

No, it is a fundamental right of workers to strike and as for strikes should be illegal...i think that is the action of a far right government.

I agree, as it is the fundamental right of any employer to sack any striker for breach of their contract.

[Citizen Smith]

I agree, as it is the fundamental right of any employer to sack any striker for breach of their contract.

Then its the right of the sacked employee to break the employer's windows.

[Pleasant]

I'm for Trade Unions to a degree, however how can they be democratic when they won't stick up for anyone in the BNP. Surely it's not their job to tell people who they can vote for or be a member of?