Employees.org.uk: is this guy union busting?

[treelover]

On the indymedia site someone has posted up the launch of this no frills union site which will basically just give out advice on sacking, insurance, etc, no solidarity and no 'communists' either, apparently. Surely, a union is much more that just a legal defence system, yes they have failings, but without them we would be heading back to the 18th/19thc with very few workplace rights at all. This guy sounds like a hippy capitalist like Richard Branson.

Even more so, is he for real or could it take off, after all this is now a very conservative country indeed.

Employees.org.uk tests demand for affordable trade union services

John Robertson | 11.12.2007 12:54 | Workers' Movements
Unions do many things, but do the large UK unions do any of them well?
http://www.Employees.org.uk is a test site asking people to express interest in a no-frills union service that could act as a supplement to traditional union membership, doing nothing but provide employment-related legal insurance. If enough people sign-up, the service will launch.

A new pre-launch web site has been made public today at
http://www.employees.org.uk

It allows anyone interested in a new sort of trade union to leave their email address before the launch.

"I think the basic legal insurance could be provided with just one member",says John Robertson, the founder:

"I could set-up a trades union all by myself, but it would be nice to have a few dozen people showing interest before I contact insurers."

John noticed a gap in the market for employment law insurance after getting the sack himself a couple of years ago while a long-standing union member.

"It was a very hard case to loose", says John "but I had to study law while off sick to work it all out."

https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/387592.html?c=on#c186011

 

[kyser_soze]

So basically it's a general purpose union offering legal support and that's it?

Why not? Could grow into something more...

 

[treelover]

Run by one person?, and it sounds like it is is antagonistic to leftists or people who see unions as a political vehicle.

 

[cesare]

http://www.responsesource.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=imTQm

Private company innit, just attempting to use TU status for tax relief. Deceitful.

 

[Mallard]

Looks like a right wing agent provocateur to me expounding a well worn anti - union line and wilfully ignoring the role of TU's. Perhaps he should get involved in his actual union in order to help make it more accountable and effective.

The use of the word 'communist' here is telling. He probably means stuff like £10 donations to UAF or Medical Aid for Palestinians.

 

[Jografer]

The use of the word 'communist' here is telling.

Yup, when I first started reading it sounded more like a CAB, but then saw the Communist Party comment...

... does the CP still exist btw?

 

[Mallard]

Yup, when I first started reading it sounded more like a CAB, but then saw the Communist Party comment...

... does the CP still exist btw?

There are several. The Communist Party of Britain is the largest (about 1,000 members I believe) The Morning Star editorial policy still broadly mirrors the policy of the Party. The CPGB (Weekly Worker lot) are still about and smaller as are The CPGB (Marxist Leninist). A sad state!

 

[Zeppo]

Most unions have a legal back up service plus sundry other services, like a free will service.

Unless I am missing something - I can not see where u pay your subs. Nothing against this being set up - but it is not the revolution on the cheap. Indeed it is not the rev.

 

[Mortlake]

I'm the person who's set-up the pilot.

It's as much a protest as anything else, to draw attention to bad trades union services, but if a few people are interested I will try to get legal insurance for them. This needn't be an alternative to trades union services. I think it's an essential extra, because trades union services of all kinds can be so bad:
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?c=190&id=331579
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/worbal.htm

 

[cesare]

I'm the person who's set-up the pilot.

It's as much a protest as anything else, to draw attention to bad trades union services, but if a few people are interested I will try to get legal insurance for them. This needn't be an alternative to trades union services. I think it's an essential extra, because trades union services of all kinds can be so bad:
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?c=190&id=331579
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/worbal.htm

It's basically potentially an HR consultancy masquerading as a trade union for tax purposes, yes?

Edit to add: Will it be free for members? Who will pay the legal insurance premiums?

 

[Mortlake]

Plan A

The important thing for me is that people can get a lawyer at a tribunal if their union fobs them off with the "whoops the union is not what you expected" line, or by providing a no-win no-fee lawyer at the last possible moment, too late to work on the evidence, or settling behind the member's back or anything like that.

I think that union services to members have got so bad in parts of the big unions that I'd advise anyone to buy legal insurance as well as taking out a membership. It's a sad situation, not made by me, and may get better if it is recognised more.

I've added a line or three on the web page:
"This service will suit union members who want a proper service to use alongside any legal service that the union provides.
It will also suit people who don't want to join a union, but do want a self-contained legal service.
It may encourage trades unions to offer decent member services in competition, which can only be a good thing."

The simplest way of starting the service up is for each member to buy a standard insurance package off an existing insurance company at a negotiated members' rate. I don't know the price until I've got a quote.
Being a "member" wouldn't be too important; it would be like being a "member" of Urban75 bulletin board. That's why I'd recommend two memberships - one with a normal union and one with http://www.employees.org.uk . As it says on line two of the web page, it starts out as a legal insurance buying group, with no deception intended.

If the service gets bigger it might be possible to get a bespoke service.
It's too early to say what this service would be - whether it could take on the role of a traditional trades union but do it better, or not.

Hope this makes sense, even if it is not for everybody
John

 

[Mortlake]

I've finally stopped getting hate email from the person who probably quashed my posting on Indiemedia. I don't think it was anyone posting on this message board: she got me direct.

The same person seems to work at an organisation funded by trades union branches. I won't say which organisation, because this would open a debate about whether it's good or bad. Probably good, I think, but that's a diversion.

Along the way I am discovering things about this type of person who I have met before while trying to complain to the T&G about failure to help members.

1) They defend their access to the trough by any means necessary.

2) They show signs of students union backgrounds in writing style, presumptious generalisations, dress sense, and of course in thinking that they have the right to funding for any old student society.

3) They show remarkable lack of guilt about taking other peoples' money meant for rather important causes, like helping people who are badly treated at work or have just been sacked.

4) It is impossible to exchange emails with these people about bad union services. This was another one on another message board:
"this guy is anti communist"
"are you interested in [accounts of union failure, also banned on indymedia]?"
"no"
This is chilling.

The thread here started with a question about whether http://www.employees.org.uk is union busting.
I've added a link on the web page to worksmart, so that people can take out dual membership of a proper contract-based legal insurance system and a union that hopefully offers more. It's a pity that anyone at work should really do both. If unions helped members more, there would be no need for legal insurance. Maybe this will goad them into providing a decent service.

 

[cesare]

You didn't answer my questions & you're spamming this 'service' & you're complaining about an Indymedia poster ... not bad going for 3 posts.

 

[nightbreed]

The important thing for me is that people can get a lawyer at a tribunal if their union fobs them off with the "whoops the union is not what you expected" line, or by providing a no-win no-fee lawyer at the last possible moment, too late to work on the evidence, or settling behind the member's back or anything like that.

I think that union services to members have got so bad in parts of the big unions that I'd advise anyone to buy legal insurance as well as taking out a membership. It's a sad situation, not made by me, and may get better if it is recognised more.

I've added a line or three on the web page:
"This service will suit union members who want a proper service to use alongside any legal service that the union provides.
It will also suit people who don't want to join a union, but do want a self-contained legal service.
It may encourage trades unions to offer decent member services in competition, which can only be a good thing."

The simplest way of starting the service up is for each member to buy a standard insurance package off an existing insurance company at a negotiated members' rate. I don't know the price until I've got a quote.
Being a "member" wouldn't be too important; it would be like being a "member" of Urban75 bulletin board. That's why I'd recommend two memberships - one with a normal union and one with http://www.employees.org.uk . As it says on line two of the web page, it starts out as a legal insurance buying group, with no deception intended.

If the service gets bigger it might be possible to get a bespoke service.
It's too early to say what this service would be - whether it could take on the role of a traditional trades union but do it better, or not.

Hope this makes sense, even if it is not for everybody
John

What if an individuals case is judged to have 'no reasonable prospect of success' at a tribunal?
This happens to many members I have represented through the procedures only to be told by the union solicitors that while the individual might have a case, its likelyhood of success is less than 50%.Therefore it cant recommend the union supports it. The member then complains that the union is shit and wont support them.

Do you support dead ducks?

 

[Mortlake]

less than 50% chance of success - fair point

That's a fair point: I expect insurance companies get the same complaint.

The person who sued the NUT had been turned down by them after years of incompetence, then discovered that she had cheap legal insurance thrown-in with a home contents policy. She got the case assessed by them and won. (newandstar link @ 10 above)

The chair of my old union branch had a dispute with his employer, went to the branch solicitor, and found they were hopeless. Luckily he was expecting this and had taken out a membership with BECTU, who were much better and took his case a stage or two before eventually both sides settled. I think they took it to a full tribunal at least.

In my case the solicitor refused to read any evidence and gave vague advice that didn't quite hang together, then asked me not to attend the tribunal chair's pre-hearing review. I think he was only doing this because an ex colleague of mine friom the same employer was complaining that he'd dropped her case without explanation when the other side didn't settle.

Come the day I got a phone call. It turned out that the tribunal chair had decided the lawyer was so bad that the case couldn't carry-on without me, and that the union and lawyer had completely messed-up a question of time limits by misunderstanding the law. The chair made-up a case that the lawyer hadn't put, which was that a recent dismissal was an act of discrimination and so not out of time. But by this time the chair seemed convinced that this was a neusance case and there wasn't any evidence, so I couldn't take it much further after sacking the lawyer, even though I had lever arch files full of the stuff.

Since my own misshap I've been trying to find out more about this. It turns out that most union lawyers aren't as bad as mine. They're junior staff at large firms. But a lot of unions provide them on a no-win no-fee contract at the last possible moment, so they don't have time to do any work and they just bluff and settle to take a small success fee.

My idea of setting up a specialist insurance service doesn't seem to have changed anything or grabbed a lot of attention - maybe there's another way to make unions better. I dunno.

I've just had another look at #10 & #13 but don't see a lot of interest in a ding-dong usenet thread. Either #9 is interesting to people or it is not. I'm not in the HR business or anything like it, and don't want to be, but if this pre-lauch trial of in idea takes off or if it influences existing unions for the better I'll be happy. A protest that involves getting stuck-in and doing something better than the unions is a good sort of protest I think.

About tax breaks mentioned in #10 and #13: If this pilot scheme becomes a union in a few years and there's a small tax break in registering, then it will, obviously.

Back to #14 above - no. The insurance company will have a panel of solicitors. They assess the 50% chance of success. Then customers can change solicitor if they want or carry-on with the one on the panel. It's a system that can be fiddled by a bad insurance company, so anyone selling the insurance policies would have to get feedback from members over time. Hopefully the lawyers will be provided in time, and they won't be no-win no-fee, and the system will be honestly run.

 

[nightbreed]

It seems to me that you had a bad experience with your union.Bad experiences do happen but they are an exception rather than a rule.The majority of members I have assisted in, however much the member felt angry with the employer, saw the arguments put forward by the union solicitors as sound.They moved on but only after they fully understood that the risk of losing with the possibility of damages being awarded against you if you did lose.
Unfortunately there dont seem to be many cases won purely because of morals or ethics.A lot of members dont understand that. Employment law is steeply on the side of employers and many employees who have been severely hard done by employers, dont see that.For example some members cant see that employers need a low balance of proof to dismiss (as long as they follow the stat procedures)
By the way, I thought the case about the NUT member was terrible and she was justified in taking them to court. A union reps job is to represent their member at all instances in my view.

Self help sometimes can work.

See here http://www.workrep.co.uk/index.html

 

[Mallard]

I don't condone bad advice/lack of help incompetence from unions but surely the best way to do it is to get more involved yourself. No union/advice is perfect and mistakes do get made. The usual 'Communist causes' comments do give the wrong impression/look suspect but don't justify hate e-mail etc. Just out of interest Mortlake, what were they?

 

[Mortlake]

Will look for branch accounts

I'll post when I find the accounts: they're only available if you're one of the 5/1000 members who goes to a certain meeting once a year and I've not been given an invite to this year's meeting!

I remember that non-divident shares in Morning Star cost lots. Hard to know how much per member but enough to pay for better lawyers. Marx Memorial Library, and something called Ruskin House were on the list. Then there were foreighn policy things which aren't communist. Solidarity campaigns for Cuba (well that one is) Venezuala and Palastine. There was a £2,000 sponsorship for a 2 mile sponsored walk for womens rights. And there was a local issue that seemed to require £250 in leaflet printing rather than doing it on an inkjet . I know I'm crass and ignorent about these issues, but when a union branch members really say that they shouldn't be providing lawyers and that the union website only said that they do by mistake, something is wrong.

I was very involved in the employer and attempts by staff to improve it. Maybe that's one reason why I was singled out. But that was to do with the workplace. This thing with a budget is set-up in a way that could only be done to prevent voting and participation. You are expected to go an vote with a show of hands in a small back room for representatives of about a thousand un-connected employees of different employers, mainly in South London. Obviously nobody goes. That's what's intended. An online system with accounts available to all would make much more sense.

Another twist is that a lot of the budgets are held by committees that are selected by committees. I suppose you have to be elected to them before you get to see the accounts.

Anyway I'll post if I can find what I've got. Sorry if I sound crass or unreasonably opposed to some cause or other.

 

[Mallard]

I'll post when I find the accounts: they're only available if you're one of the 5/1000 members who goes to a certain meeting once a year and I've not been given an invite to this year's meeting!

Thanks Mort. It should be the right of every member to attend.

I remember that non-divident shares in Morning Star cost lots. Hard to know how much per member but enough to pay for better lawyers. Marx Memorial Library, and something called Ruskin House were on the list.

The Morning Star is technically not controlled by The Communist Party of Britain but it does follow it's policy in editorials and the editor is a member. It is financed through unions/donations and what it calls 'progressive organisations'. Ruskin House is the building where The Morning Star is written/produced and tbf the CPB do hold meetings there. I suppose 'Communist' therefore is actually appropriate here then.

Then there were foreighn policy things which aren't communist. Solidarity campaigns for Cuba (well that one is) Venezuala and Palastine. There was a £2,000 sponsorship for a 2 mile sponsored walk for womens rights. And there was a local issue that seemed to require £250 in leaflet printing rather than doing it on an inkjet.

That's a lot of cash. They must be minted!

I know I'm crass and ignorent about these issues, but when a union branch members really say that they shouldn't be providing lawyers and that the union website only said that they do by mistake, something is wrong.

Actually I would agree with you here. If they have the cash for the above lawyers for members should be properly funded. My union has them and we don't spend that type of cash despite our Division having about as many members. I would argue this at meeting myself.

I was very involved in the employer and attempts by staff to improve it. Maybe that's one reason why I was singled out. But that was to do with the workplace. This thing with a budget is set-up in a way that could only be done to prevent voting and participation. You are expected to go an vote with a show of hands in a small back room for representatives of about a thousand un-connected employees of different employers, mainly in South London. Obviously nobody goes. That's what's intended. An online system with accounts available to all would make much more sense.

Again, I'd agree and this doesn't sound acceptable to me and is likely to lead to a lack of member participation/democracy and ultimately a drop in union membership. They need people like yourself to fight to make the union more accountable to the membership.

Another twist is that a lot of the budgets are held by committees that are selected by committees. I suppose you have to be elected to them before you get to see the accounts.

Anyway I'll post if I can find what I've got. Sorry if I sound crass or unreasonably opposed to some cause or other.

Thanks for the response Mortlake. You don't sound crass or unreasonable and tbh there are obvious problems here. My worry is that the state of some union branches is clearly unacceptable and must improve. However, given that unions are recognised and have money and a degree of influence and participation it would surely be better for members to get involved and actively make them accountable starting at a local level. I am concerned if people leave your union even for the best of intentions the outcome will be a weaker voice for employees. Admittedly, I am an active Trade Unionist myself (a rep in full time work) and I suppose I would defend unions. I wouldn't defend all the above that you have outlined as you are right to take exception.

 

[cesare]

I'm not in the HR business or anything like it, and don't want to be, but if this pre-lauch trial of in idea takes off or if it influences existing unions for the better I'll be happy. A protest that involves getting stuck-in and doing something better than the unions is a good sort of protest I think.

As I said before on this thread, you're using Urban to spam your new business, whether it's another form of insurance broking, or employment advice or both - and here you are doing it even more overtly:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6908754&postcount=61

2. No advertising of any kind. We are not interested in hearing about your company/website/club/product/new song/gig/glowing rave underpants. This is a non-profit, community discussion forum, not a free advertising resource and offenders will be given a spanked botty.

the FAQs

So, have you cleared this with the moderators?

 

[Mortlake]

1

 

[Mortlake]

People with their hands in the till prevent tribunal representation

I think we've both been trolled by somone who accepts money from trades union funds.

We've probably flogged to death the spam / not spam, commercial / not commercial argument in another thread but I am coming back here so as not to interfere in the other one.

I posted a news item on a news service - Indymedia [1] [2] - about a new kind of trades union. I got an immediate comment that it was right wing and request that it be deleted. It was. Then an "Is this guy union busting?" thread started here that used the same student-like language. And at the same time I got a series of emails at home that began "Don't know what you are trying to do here.... you do not understand" but turned into student-union language after the first one or two. I stopped reading them after the second "don't think you understand".

So all this activity is most likely from the same person, who is someone who writes "Unite T&G" in her email sig but seems to be working for a small campaigning organisation.

I suspect that her organisation is funded by people with their hands in the till at one or two T&G branches.
That's why the hyper-sensitivity about criticisms of trades unions.

I think that problems like

• no contract with members

• examples of a bad track record

• unworkable democratic systems geared to small cliques

• no-win no-fee lawyers being used for tribunals

• a union-funded governing party making sure that unions are exempt from the usual consumer protection laws that would insist on a proper contract with members

• less than 10% of the legal budget being spent on employment law
  need exposing.

That is what the people with their hands in the till don't want others to read.

 

[poster342002]

Having seen people fucked about by unions that seem to be way too cosy with the employer, I can see why Mortlake would set up this initiative. I don't think he's "rightwing" or union busting at all. It's interesting how ordinary members who get shat upon by TU beaurocracies now get labelled "rightwing".

As for the argument to "fight and make the unions more democratically accountable", well, hasn't that been tried and failed? Nobody can ever answer the question of "how?" this can be done in the face of utterly entrenched and intransigent beaurocracies.

 

[Mortlake]

Thanks Poster!

When I first came across this union branch I asked the secretary whether he could use a free-to-set-up Yahoo Groups site for voting or such. His reply was that

• he didn't think the central part of the union would allow it,
• debate would be difficult, and that
• the purpose of a union was to bring people together.

I agree with him that debate would be out. Maybe someone could post the minutes or something.

I don't agree that lots of union members should all have to meet once a month across several employers and areas if they are to get a vote. If he'd said a friendly society I might have asked more.

As for voting, loads of union branches are now about public sector of voluntary sector office staff who can log-on to a union web site in their lunch breaks. And loads of branch secretaries must be trying to get members' email addresses just to save having to stuff envelopes when sending them things, so I doubt that the idea of online voting is turned-down because it is a bad idea. I think the man was uncomfortable with it.

Hope someone has better luck than me making something online-democratic.

As for the central part of the union being against it: fine. Everybody should be against opinion polls sometimes.

Oddly enough, the same branch secretary who turned down my suggestion of online voting sends earnest emails every month about campaigns for labour party democracy.

John

 

[Soul On Ice]

I think I should try to correct some of the misleading info put out here. Before I start I shall declare an interest - I'm a paid official of a trade union, so although I'm biased, I'm also knowledgeable.

I shall not respond to every issue raised, but I shall focus on the two main issues. Firstly sometimes members are not happy that unions don't always support their ET cases. Secondly unions only spend 10% of their money on legal representation.

Unions have a duty to the individual member and also to the wider membership (remember they are collective organisations). As such the union has a duty to assess each ET case on its merits. Most unions apply the "reasonable prospects of success" criteria, i.e. it has a better than 50% chance of succeeding. How do they make the assessment? As you would expect, they get expert legal advice from employment rights solicitors. So, far this seems to be uncontroversial to me, but let's just check this out with Mortlake with some questions.

1. Do you believe unions should support all ET cases?

2. If the answer to 1, above is no, then do you accept that it is reasonable that unions have some set criteria to assess ET cases? I accept you may not agree with the "reasonable prospects of success criteria" but I'm asking if you think they should have some form of criteria.

3. If you accept their should be criteria, do you accept that getting advice from employment rights solicitors?

4. Do you then accept that, whatever criteria are used, it is inevitable some people will not be happy as their cases will not be supported?

I have been handled in countless ET cases and had to withdraw the union's support in some instances, for the reasons outlined above. Several times I've heard memebrs tell me that a solicitor their friend who is a solicitor / a barrister / some other so called expert has told them that they have a sure fire case and they don't know why the union has withdrawn support. On every occasion this so called expert view has been rubbish for one, or more of the following reasons:

- the solicitor is not an employment rights specialist, so theur advice us not expert. On more than one occasion I've seen written advice from solicitors that members have paid to see themselves that contains incorrect legal advice.

- the solicitor / barrister has not seen the full bundle of papers, witness staements in relation to the case. Anyone who is involved in giving legal advice should tell you that they cannot give advice without having the full information. Members naturally tell the story from their point of view, in a self serving manner.

- the solicitor tells them they have a good case and if their union will fund it, they will take the case for them. But if the union does not fund the case, the solicitor does not then say, "Ok, I'll take it on a no win no fee basis" cos they know it isn't a strong case. Or if they do take it on a no win no fee (NWNF) basis they only do so after the members has taken out an expensive insurance policy to pay the solicitor if the case fails.

I've personally had to withdraw support in over 100 ET cases and about 30 of those members have gone on to run their own case. Only one of those cases was subsequently successful, which was mainly due to the fact that it was a new area of law and the solicitor gave me some duff advice. In fact I am only aware of 4/5 cases in the past 5 years or so in my union's region where we turned the case down and the member went on and won it. I reckon this amounts to less than 1% of the cases that we have turned down. So yes, we get it wrong sometimes, but not very often - and I don't believe my union is any different to any other.

It is wrong for Mortlake to suggest that there is no recourse for a union member whose case is not supported by their union. Apart from any union internal appeals mechanism, the member also has the option of suing the union for negligence for failing to take their case - and many do. I am aware of many such instances. Indeed this is a lucrative area for many solicitors as unions are a soft touch. In the past, we'd rather pay out a couple of grand than have the publicity of the negligence case, that even if we win, the mud sticks. I'm glad to see that over the past few years, my own union has taken a much more robust line of such cases.

As for unions only spending 10% of their income on legal fees - that sounds about right. Mortlake seems to be confused about what the role of a union is. Unions exist to represent their members collectively and indivdually and this is done primarily at a workplace level.

For every one ET case we take there are 99 other cases that that are dealt with at a workplace level. Unions aim to help members solve their problems, as soon as possible, at the lowest level. If you accept Mortlake's solution, you only get hep once things have got really bad.

Just for example let me give you the approximate breakdown of costs for a typical union:

25% - goes to branches. This covers the cost of branch meetings, mailing members, paying traveling expenses, attending courses, local campaigning etc

50% - paying for paid officials like myself. Most, "human resource rich" organisations pay about 70 - 80% of their turnover as staff costs. Unions pay less cos they have an army of volunteer activists

10% - support costs - energy costs, IT, phone bills, postage, printing etc

5% - national campaigns

10% - legal costs

In this context 10% is reasonable, don't you think?

I accept that unions are imperfect organisations, and we sometimes get it wrong, but your description is misleading and your solution is wrong. Aside from the fact your solution would result in the destruction of collective bargaining, which has vastly improved the terms and conditions of millions of people, your solution waits until the issue has escalated to become a legal one, rather than solving it at a local level.

A final question for Mortlake. If I join your organisation and need legal support, will you guarantee to fund my legal costs for any ET I want to take? Or, will you, like a union does, carry out some form of assessment as to whether you will support a claim? I don't believe it is the former, cos if it is you will go bust very quickly.

I look forward to your response.

 

[Mallard]

I accept that unions are imperfect organisations, and we sometimes get it wrong, but your description is misleading and your solution is wrong. Aside from the fact your solution would result in the destruction of collective bargaining, which has vastly improved the terms and conditions of millions of people, your solution waits until the issue has escalated to become a legal one, rather than solving it at a local level.

A good post Soul. Was good to see the rationale for the funding of unions and imo 10% seems reasonable given that fighting legal cases is actually not that large a part of what unions do in the grand scheme. As you indicate, most problems are/can be resolved at a rep/local level possibly without the direct involvement of officials like yourself.

Whilst accepting mistakes have been made, I can't agree with what Mortlake has done and view it as an attack on unions when we have already been hammered from all sides in the past. I'm afraid that his actions will not solve any of the inherent problems of representing numerous people or avoid the need to make tough decisions about which battles to fight.

It's very easy to carp about problems and moan about mistakes. What we actually need is greater unionisation and more involvement and engagement from and with existing and future members.

 

[Soul On Ice]

A good post Soul. Was good to see the rationale for the funding of unions and imo 10% seems reasonable given that fighting legal cases is actually not that large a part of what unions do in the grand scheme. As you indicate, most problems are/can be resolved at a rep/local level possibly without the direct involvement of officials like yourself.

Whilst accepting mistakes have been made, I can't agree with what Mortlake has done and view it as an attack on unions when we have already been hammered from all sides in the past. I'm afraid that his actions will not solve any of the inherent problems of representing numerous people or avoid the need to make tough decisions about which battles to fight.

It's very easy to carp about problems and moan about mistakes. What we actually need is greater unionisation and more involvement and engagement from and with existing and future members.

Thanks for the props.

It will be interesting if Mortlake responds to the questions I've raised

 

[Mortlake]

starting with the questions

1. Do you believe unions should support all ET cases?

No

2. If the answer to 1, above is no, then do you accept that it is reasonable that unions have some set criteria to assess ET cases? I accept you may not agree with the "reasonable prospects of success criteria" but I'm asking if you think they should have some form of criteria.

Yes

3. If you accept their should be criteria, do you accept that getting advice from employment rights solicitors?

Yes

4. Do you then accept that, whatever criteria are used, it is inevitable some people will not be happy as their cases will not be supported?

Yes

Everything you ahve asked fits with what I expected my union to be before I needed their help: I expected them to turn-down some cases etc etc.

About your union having less than 1% of cases where members are turned-down for legal support and go-on to win cases in other way: this sounds good. It is a worrying area, because some union members are low-paid, low-expectation etc so I worry that as a middle class awkward type, I expose a problem that others have shrugged-off. Also, others are getting-on with their lives in retirement, child care, illness, or the next job and so don't make a fuss. Lastly, most union members would pick their union as a first choice to visit for advice. They may not have mugged-up on other options such as DIY law or whatever because they were busy being sacked and thought the union would back them. Will save disagrements for the next post though.

 

[Mortlake]

checking that we're reading the same thing

Sole on Ice
Do you agree that the Unison v Jervis case seems to be about a man who's case was turned-down for backing by a volunteer rep, writing a memo to him after she had "spoken to" the paid official? This was a case Mr Jervis went-on to win with a private lawyer.

Do you agree that Unison should have apologised and paid his expenses, instead of fighting his complaint all the way through the Certification Office and employment tribunal system, and ending-up with a city solicitor and smart barrister from Matrix Chambers? This is against a nurse from the nightshift representing himself and trying to recover from depression

Do you agree that the Legal Director of a big union quoted seems to say that he uses no-win no-fee lawyers for members? "tremendously helpful" is his phrase. So the amount of easy compensation is a criterion for help, as well as the chance of success. If he isn't saying this, I don't see how it is that less than 10% of his legal budget goes on employment law and 90% of it goes on personal injury, just as private no-win no-fee lawyers do mainly personal injury work and hardly any employment law work.

That's what the info seems to be saying.
I tried complaining to my union but got deliberate misunderstanding and obfuscation. And once they see you as a troublemaker, it's like pinching the queen's bottom: the relationship ends.
John

 

[Mortlake]

1