Topic: any legal types on here?

[Unwashed]

Debster

I'm sorry, I have little sympathy for people who don't join the union because it makes it all the harder for us to support our members and the freeloaders still get collective benefits.  He won't get support on this issue, but I hope he does the decent thing and joins up now for the next issue.

He should go and visit CAB for some advice, taking his old and new contract with him.

[caroline7758]

payments do not have to be higher than the current statutory weekly wage, which is around £270 or so

  Are you sure about this?  I thought the max was £380 unless contract states it is unlimited.

Yes, 380

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_money/employment/redundancy___an_introduction/redundancy_pay.htm#how_much_is_statutory_redundancy_pay

[SMP1704]

oops - sorry.  Must check typing more carefully :-[

[SMP1704]

Unwashed

When unions remember that they exist soley to represent their members rights, then I'll join.  At the moment, I see unions using the smallest reason to boost their own power and position; I'm thinking particularly about PCS.

I believe it is right that as individual's we have a free will choice to decide whether or not to join a union and that our successful employment no longer hinges on our acceptance of union membership.  that's not freedom, it's coercion - rather at odds with the ethos of trade unionism surely?

Anyway, this thread isn't about TU membership, its about a dodgy employer - the only thing a union would add to the mix is a strike and hasten the closure of the business.

[PurpleHeather]

Debster.

I am certain that you will find that as an employee you do not sign a contract of employment, you sign to say that you have received a copy from your employer. Your employer is by law required to give you a contract of employment and the signature saying you have received it is common practise

The employer can vary that contract by giving you notice. You would sign to say that you had received that copy.

The contract can not alter what the law demands as a minimum.

Your house insurance almost certainly covers you for legal advice if you have a dispute with an employer, neighbourand and can even be used if you have an accident which was not your fault.

You could ring them up and enquire, they should have their own legal department who can advise or could refer you to a local solicitor at their expense.

Your husband would be best advised to join a Union together with all the other members of staff with whom he works. It has to be said that some Unions are better than others and the cost of the subscriptions varies too. Workers who belong to Unions are  always on a higher salary than non Union workers.

Too many people think they can save money by not joining a Union because the Employer seems to be OK. Yhen when they find that they could be 5h1t on they whinge.


Join a Union in the good times and enourage your employer to accept them. If there are problems then, there is already a relationship which can work both ways.

Union leaders can be pig headed as we have  seen with BA but not all are.

[Larkshall]

When unions remember that they exist soley to represent their members rights, then I'll join.  At the moment, I see unions using the smallest reason to boost their own power and position; I'm thinking particularly about PCS.

I'm sorry you have such a jaundiced view, it's people like you who give the Scottish Mafia their power (former CPSA officials will know what I mean).

I believe it is right that as individual's we have a free will choice to decide whether or not to join a union and that our successful employment no longer hinges on our acceptance of union membership.  that's not freedom, it's coercion - rather at odds with the ethos of trade unionism surely?

I suppose that the employer in question is not coercing?

Anyway, this thread isn't about TU membership, its about a dodgy employer - the only thing a union would add to the mix is a strike and hasten the closure of the business.

As a former branch secretary of a union (of which I am still a member 23years after leaving the job) I can assure you that a strike is the last thing on the agenda. Just before I left the job I had to handle a strike, afterwards I was thanked by members and the management for my efforts.

[SMP1704]

and Larkshall you clearly demonstrate that there are good people out there, committed to doing the best by their members.  If only there were more of you - sadly there are not.

[Unwashed]

When unions remember that they exist soley to represent their members rights, then I'll join.  At the moment, I see unions using the smallest reason to boost their own power and position; I'm thinking particularly about PCS.

Campaigning for workers' rights has no boundaries.  Unions have a legitimate right to involve themselves in the broadest possible range of debate to represent their members' interests and values, social, political, or indeed horticultural.  And yes, that can be a powerful lobby, though rarely as powerful as the self-interest that opposes it.

I believe it is right that as individual's we have a free will choice to decide whether or not to join a union and that our successful employment no longer hinges on our acceptance of union membership.  that's not freedom, it's coercion - rather at odds with the ethos of trade unionism surely?

Isn't that a false dichotomy?  I don't actually understand your point.

Anyway, this thread isn't about TU membership, its about a dodgy employer - the only thing a union would add to the mix is a strike and hasten the closure of the business.

Maybe you should stop reading the Daily Mail.  In this situation the worker would have been advised and reassured had he been in a unoin, and had the union been any good the situation would never have occured in the first place.  However, if there isn't an active union there is nothing to stop the employer trying it on.

[SMP1704]

I don't read the Daily Mail - perhaps you should let go of a few preconceptions?