Recruiting Union Members

[poster342002]

PCS is one of the few unions to actually grow recently - despite cuts in the numbers of staff eligible to join. And why might they be growing? because they are fighting for the vast majority of their members. It's a story repeated across the unions, when they do actually take action. By fighting, we show we are relevant, and we recruit.

So why hasn't that carried through to kbj's workplace then? PCS seem to be doing spectacularly badly there, from what he describes. Why is this, do you think?

 

[belboid]

for one thing - I wouldn't entirely trust kbj's version of events.

For another, head offices are always bad for unions, too many people wanting to be lovely lovely to the boss.

There will be other specific reasons, G2 seems to be aware of some, kbj as well - tho he never actually enunciates what they are.

 

[poster342002]

For another, head offices are always bad for unions, too many people wanting to be lovely lovely to the boss.

And what tactics are there to counter this problem found in head offices - which seems to be another case of Corporate Stockholm Syndrome?

 

[belboid]

tbh, i suspect they will largely follow on from work done elsewhere. Recruiters recruit who they want, and they are likely to recruit 'friendly' people to such positions.

Then there will be the specifics related to that workplace, which am not qualified to comment on, and how well stewards (in particular) organise around them. They are, almost undoubtedly, harder to organise than most other departments. Which is why no one should ever take them as 'the norm' or any such thing.

 

[Guineveretoo]

sense prevail??!!

Maybe failure342002 is right - you are living in a fantasy world!

What?

 

[poster342002]

tbh, i suspect they will largely follow on from work done elsewhere. Recruiters recruit who they want, and they are likely to recruit 'friendly' people to such positions.

Then there will be the specifics related to that workplace, which am not qualified to comment on, and how well stewards (in particular) organise around them. They are, almost undoubtedly, harder to organise than most other departments. Which is why no one should ever take them as 'the norm' or any such thing.

The fact remains that there seems to be a severe problem with scabbing and pisspoor levels of TU conciousnes in head offices that needs to be addressed rather than just downplayed and shrugged off as "oh well - they're like that". Otherwise what few activists remain are likely to become increasingly demoralised at the attitudes of their colleagues AND the wider left/tu movement's reluctance to tackle the problem. I think that's what happened with kbj and why constantly calling him a scab is unhelpful in the extreme - he's actually one of the few people remaining there with a tu conciousness at all.

 

[belboid]

What?

simply that there is beggar all chance of sense ever prevailing on here, innit?

 

[Guineveretoo]

So why hasn't that carried through to kbj's workplace then? PCS seem to be doing spectacularly badly there, from what he describes. Why is this, do you think?

Because he exagerrates and/or lies.

PCS are not doing spectacularly badly in his workplace at all, as I have tried to detail.

It's interesting how you believe his twaddle over what I say, isn't it? I think that's quite telling. He has never been in any of the meetings with management or ministers fighting the job losses, nor has he been in any of the meetings between the union and the members at risk. He doesn't know what he is talking about. Everything he says is gossip of one kind or another.

 

[belboid]

The fact remains that there seems to be a severe problem with scabbing and pisspoor levels of TU conciousnes in head offices that needs to be addressed rather than just downplayed and shrugegd off as "oh well - they're like that". Otherwise what few activists remain are likely to become increasingly demoralised at the attitudes of their colleagues AND the wider left/tu movement's reluctance to tackle the problem. I think that's what happened with kbj and why constantly calling him a scab is unhelpful in the extreme - he's actually one of the few people remaining there with a tu conciousness at all.

balderdash. if someone is scabbing (as kbj openly admits to, and says he will do again) then you call it that - you don't apologise for it. and his TU 'consciousness' is no such thing, it appears, its a club consciousness, based upon individualism and services. All but useless.

 

[Guineveretoo]

simply that there is beggar all chance of sense ever prevailing on here, innit?

Oh, I see.

Sorry - I was being a bit off topic anyway.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Because he exagerrates and/or lies.

PCS are not doing spectacularly badly in his workplace at all, as I have tried to detail.

It's interesting how you believe his twaddle over what I say, isn't it? I think that's quite telling. He has never been in any of the meetings with management or ministers fighting the job losses, nor has he been in any of the meetings between the union and the members at risk. He doesn't know what he is talking about. Everything he says is gossip of one kind or another.

But PCS IS doing badly in my place that cannot be denied or ignored. If the union was doing so well why do so few people support actions/attend meetings etc etc etc.

I'm not denying that you are probably speaking truth about other orgs/workplaces but definitely not here.

 

[poster342002]

balderdash. if someone is scabbing (as kbj openly admits to, and says he will do again) then you call it that - you don't apologise for it. and his TU 'consciousness' is no such thing, it appears, its a club consciousness, based upon individualism and services. All but useless.

If I recall, kbj lost his patience after the 05 Nov 04 strike (which he DID participate in) was mass-scabbed on by nearly all the members in his office, only for the union and the left to gabble on about how "solid!" and "fantastic!" it was - totally ignoring problem areas such as the one he works in where the turnout was shockingly abysmall. This would piss anyone in his position off to the stage where they end up where he has.

So instead of opting for the easy target of kicking kbj, how about some answers to tackle the apparently severe problem of scabbing in head offices?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

If I recall, kbj lost his patience after the 05 Nov 04 strike (which he DID participate in) was mass-scabbed on by nearly all the members in his office, only for the union and the left to gabble on about how "solid!" and "fantastic!" it was - totally ignoring problem areas such as the one he works in where the turnout was shockingly abysmall. This would piss anyone in his position off to the stage where they end up where he has.

So instead of opting for the easy target of kicking kbj, how about some answers to tackle the apparently severe problem of scabbing in head offices?

Spot on. I did naively expect that the level of scabbing in my place wouldn't have been as horrendous as it was. I expected a few 'careerists' to scab but never the majority of the workforce.

I thought about it and decieded that it was an utter waste of time for me to lose a days money for fuck all result especially as at the time I was on my uppers.

 

[Guineveretoo]

But PCS IS doing badly in my place that cannot be denied or ignored. If the union was doing so well why do so few people support actions/attend meetings etc etc etc.

I'm not denying that you are probably speaking truth about other orgs/workplaces but definitely not here.

It can be denied, and I am not ignoring it.

I am talking about your workplace.

I admit that the density of membership is not as good as it could be, and that they are not as good as they used to be at publicising what they have achieved, but they do really well, all things considered. It's about priorities and, unfortunately, they have had to prioritise other things!

It's a shame that, if you were concerned at them not doing enough, you didn't support them and get out there and do the recruiting and publicising for PCS, rather than quitting at the time when your union colleagues really needed your help.

They have had to fight huge job losses and, although a lot of posts have been lost, no member has been dismissed against their will. That's quite an achievement, and has involved a lot of hard work by the local reps.

Although some members have resigned in your department, more have joined, and the membership, across the group, is increasing, because people see the results.

 

[Guineveretoo]

If I recall, kbj lost his patience after the 05 Nov 04 strike (which he DID participate in) was mass-scabbed on by nearly all the members in his office, only for the union and the left to gabble on about how "solid!" and "fantastic!" it was - totally ignoring problem areas such as the one he works in where the turnout was shockingly abysmall. This would piss anyone in his position off to the stage where they end up where he has.

So instead of opting for the easy target of kicking kbj, how about some answers to tackle the apparently severe problem of scabbing in head offices?

I think you are speaking at cross purposes. The "head offices" referred to earlier are the staffed union offices. There is a sense from some people on these boards, that people who work for trade unions are not interested in the wellbeing of their membership, but are out for their own gain.

I am not denying that there are not enough PCS members in KBJ's particular office, to be able to support a strike, but he and I spoke about this some time ago, and I tried to help him to think about how to improve on that and to recruit to PCS, rather than to scab, then resign and join another union which is not able to do anything at all.

We are "kicking" kbj because this is his thread, and I suspect that he is probably deliberately winding people up, because I find it difficult to beleive that he doesn't understand that GMB are not able to do anything in his workplace, and are not even able to do any active recruiting. This allows him to have a moan later on, if he is not challenged at this stage, so I fell for his trolling, and I am on leave this week, so I have time to waste on this thread

 

[belboid]

So instead of opting for the easy target of kicking kbj, how about some answers to tackle the apparently severe problem of scabbing in head offices?

a - it wasn't ignored, many people - on here - sympathised with him at the time, but since then he has gone on to justify all sorts of scabbing and shite behaviour (the epitome of which being his campaign to vote tory)

b - you are back to your old notion of ignoring the good - the large majority in that case - to concentrate on the weak. All that does is justify apathy and cynicism. But you aren't really interested in having a fighting union, that would undercut your own depressive perspective, so you have to bang on and on and on about the negative whilst ignoring the positive.

 

[poster342002]

you are back to your old notion of ignoring the good - the large majority in that case - to concentrate on the weak. All that does is justify apathy and cynicism. But you aren't really interested in having a fighting union, that would undercut your own depressive perspective, so you have to bang on and on and on about the negative whilst ignoring the positive.

No - I'm just a firm beleiver in the adage that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. A "fighting union" that seems blase about mass-scabbing in some areas is not, in my definition, a "figting union" at all. I can't conceive of the NUM being so what-the-heck about the nottinghamshire debacle, for instance.

That's not to say the weak areas are the be all and end all - but without serious attention they're undermining the whole wider effort in a severe way. Doubt me? Well, Gordon Brown's so evidentally unbothered that he's getting ready for another load of cuts. Something's encouraging the employers that they'll meet little resistance in key areas.

 

[belboid]

I don't really consider Head Offices to be the equivalent of nottinghamshire. On size alone, they are more the equivalent of a single (not insignificant) pit.

 

[poster342002]

I don't really consider Head Offices to be the equivalent of nottinghamshire. On size alone, they are more the equivalent of a single (not insignificant) pit.

But what's to be done about the problem? It's not fair on the rest that do strike for those offices to keep on like this.

 

[belboid]

I've replied to that before & have no intention of going round in ever decreasing circles

 

[poster342002]

it seems to me that the problem is a bit of an elephant-in-the-livingroom that nobody really wants to talk about.

 

[belboid]

except it has been talked about. just not to your satisfaction - shock horror

 

[KeyboardJockey]

But what's to be done about the problem? It's not fair on the rest that do strike for those offices to keep on like this.

I think the only way to do away with scabbing or at least limit it to the management arse lickers and careerist hard core scabs who are probably dyed in the wool tories anyway is for unions to pay strike pay.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I think the only way to do away with scabbing or at least limit it to the management arse lickers and careerist hard core scabs who are probably dyed in the wool tories anyway is for unions to pay strike pay.

And where do you think they will get that from?

They do have hardship funds, however.

Are you now suggesting that the only reason you scabbed was because you would lose a day's pay?

 

[poster342002]

Can we please stop personalising this to keyboardjockey? It's providing a handy get-out for those who want to avoid discussing the wider issue.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Can we please stop personalising this to keyboardjockey? It's providing a handy get-out for those who want to avoid discussing the wider issue.

It's his thread, ffs, and I am replying to points he makes.

If you want to discuss the wider issue, whatever you think that is, why don't you start a thread of your own?

 

[biff curtains]

Because he exagerrates and/or lies.

PCS are not doing spectacularly badly in his workplace at all, as I have tried to detail.

It's interesting how you believe his twaddle over what I say, isn't it? I think that's quite telling. He has never been in any of the meetings with management or ministers fighting the job losses, nor has he been in any of the meetings between the union and the members at risk. He doesn't know what he is talking about. Everything he says is gossip of one kind or another.

Hmm tough one, believe a disillousioned TUist or a TU fulltimer...

 

[Guineveretoo]

Hmm tough one, believe a disillousioned TUist or a TU fulltimer...

Entirely up to you, of course, but please don't imagine that kbj was an active trade union rep, because he wasn't. As such, he was not involved in any of the work that PCS did in his department or workplace, and really doesn't seem to know much about it at all.

Admittedly, that shows a bit of a weakness on the part of the union, for not publicising what they have done, but, as I said earlier, they were forced into prioritising, and, I am afraid, they have a low density of membership in some areas, including in kbj's particular office.