cesare
shady's dreams ♥
It didn't work like that with USDAW (my few years' experience of being in a closed shop).
Crossing picket lines - is it ever ok?
- Thread starter glenquagmire
- Start date
It didn't work like that with USDAW (my few years' experience of being in a closed shop).
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
Why didn't the freelance person join a union?
The TGWU did not recruit people - management did. A condition of accepting a job under a closed shop was that they joined the TGWU, but it wasn't the closed shop which caused this.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
All the time that management are responsible for recruiting into a closed shop, and management control the dues by way of check-off - the union's position is compromised.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
But being in a closed shop doesn't mean they're going to do more voting for a change of offices etc, does it?
You will always have a proportion of people that just aren't interested.
Secondary picketing shouldn't be illegal, imo.
But I don't agree with forcing people into a closed shop.
You will always have a proportion of people that just aren't interested.
Secondary picketing shouldn't be illegal, imo.
But I don't agree with forcing people into a closed shop.
Cynic.....
......Murdock bought the Times et al in 1981, when KBJ was 17, and completed the negotiations on new technology & efficiency which got rid of linotype in May 1982 (KBJ = 18) ...
.... so perfectly possible for such a precocious young thing....
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
The closed shop at least meant there were no free loaders, and it meant that everyone had the opportunity of voting or speaking, and thereby holding the elected officers to account.
But yes, there will always be people who are not interested. At least under the closed shop, those people are paying their subs to the body which is negotiating their pay rises, and protecting their jobs and livelihood.
Right now, in kbj's workplace, for example, the unions are trying to negotiate a pay increase and are trying to stop people from being dismissed. They are having to do this, in the case of PCS, without the full support or mandate of the membership, rather too many of whom have chosen to resign their membership, or not to join in the first place. This ignores the need for solidarity and collectivity in order to give a union some teeth, and means that the unions have some difficulty persuading management that they have the voice of the workforce, when that workforce, even those who are members of the union, are known to cross picket lines, when legitimate, voted for, industrial action is called for.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Where you have a fossilised and entrenched beaurocracy this becomes nigh-on impossible. Or you end up with no real choice - with all candidates cosily agreeing to keep things as they are whoever's elected.
And what if people become "discouraged" to stand against established officers through threats of trumped-up union disciplinmary action that could cost their membership and - ergo - their job in a closed shop?
.... I might have mentioned before, that I am so glad not to live in 'your' world....
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Guin, I guess this goes to the heart of the argument on how effective any union is.
From what KBJ says, they're not effective in his workplace. They might not be. But I believe that worker self-organisation is the issue that should be encouraged and that unions are a means to that end - not the end in themselves.
From what KBJ says, they're not effective in his workplace. They might not be. But I believe that worker self-organisation is the issue that should be encouraged and that unions are a means to that end - not the end in themselves.
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
The freelancer was an NUJ member but because of archaic and stupid demarcation agreements the NUJ member wasn't allowed to work the wire machine even though he was a) technically competent to do so and b) he couldn't meet the deadlines if he had to wait for an nga member to come round to use the machine and c) he couldn't afford to employ an nga member to sit around doing fuck all just so that he or she could operate a machine approximately 5 or 6 times per week.
dennisr
the acceptable face
like a scene from "i'm alright jack" - its just a relief to all of us that you KJ are there to stem the tide of union bureaucracy gone mad
so any more examples you have read about? (sorry, knew some poor oppressed victim of the insidious practices personally, you know, like met down the pub like...)
"A Day in the Life of Keyboard Jockey" - i liked the sound of that - when you going to start writing
err... no.... he claims it as a KBJ fact....
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Well anecdotes can be based in fact
But to clarify, I'm not speaking up to support KBJ's position on the alleged ineffectiveness of the PCS and how little he was able to do in terms of mustering up any kind of workplace organisation ... I just happen to be in agreement with him over the issue of closed shops.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
of course. tho in the days of the closed shop you got far more active branches - not least because they were based upon workplaces, so it was much easier to convene meetings (in work time!). often (anecdotally at least) those who really didn't want to be in a union would turn up at meetings just to be annoying! if you find yourself in a near permanent minority, well, it's tough shit isn't it? That's democracy for you. Which takes us back to the freeloaders argument.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
so you're against the closed shop too?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
But the issue wasn't about what was happening at shopfloor level (though yes, of course, it did make life easier for reps), the problems were further up the union and management hierarchies.
Except it doesn't ...
But some people simply can't afford it.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
I can see pros and cons.
The key question to ask with many things is: "would it make a difference in recent cases or current environments". I can say with 90% that I doubt a closed shop would make the slightest difference to the levels of apathy I've seen. If willing members of the union are totally apathetic, I don't see what forcing the unwilling to join would acheieve. Then there's the potential problems I outlined in the post you quoted.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
That doesn't mean they are not free loaders!
Besides, I would argue that everyone can afford to join a trade union. Not only because they have sliding scales, but because of the welfare, legal and other benefits of membership even without the support given when someone runs into difficulties at work.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Does the Police Federation exist as a closed-shop (of sorts) or do members have to opt to join, pay subs, that sort of thing?
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Now this might be an idea.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
Indeed, but that would be unlawful, and would be a closed shop by another name
I have no issue with that line of reasoning ... but it doesn't seem to work in other situations where it is strongly argued that rights come without responsibilities!
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Indeed, but that would be unlawful, and would be a closed shop by another name
Well closed shop agreements aren't actually unlawful, but the cost of enforcing them is impossibly high as a result of the compensation that an individual would receive if they were to lose their job (or weren't able to get a job) because one was in operation.
Now if you're going down the route of non-discrimination on the grounds (or not) of trade union membership (linked as that is to the ECHR's guarantee of freedom of association which is probably what VP meant, db) then why would would you be arguing in favour of closed shops?
Similar threads
