Haringey NUT call off strike action

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John D on November 25, 2014 at 8:13

Just to clarify - I'm sure there is a good reason.

Why aren't union reps paid by the union ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on November 25, 2014 at 8:31

I can only speak from my own workplace but it's seen as more cost effective to negotiate and consult with 1 person representing the membership than, in the case of where I work, a couple of thousand people.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on November 25, 2014 at 8:45

That's a given. But in any union I've been in, we paid the reps, not the employers. Surely this is a good example of why the rep shouldn't be beholden to the other side for support ?

The rep who sups with the devil needs a long spoon

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Philip on November 25, 2014 at 8:59

It's a deal which suits both sides. Since Union reps are entitled to have facility time to work on members' behalf and still need to be employees of the place, it's easier this way for both sides. However, when management want to attack their employees' pay or conditions, they often attack union reps as a 'softening up' action. This is recognised by the teachers, which is why there has been such a reaction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on November 28, 2014 at 2:19

Hi John

What union is this then?

I have worked in Private, Public and Charity Sector and in all cases whilst I pay out of my salary to a union, it does not cover the union representatives time per-se.

When I was a Union Steward in a Private Company, it was a role I was elected to. So I was an employee, doing the job I applied for (not a union steward as that is not a job), and my colleagues elected me to be their representative in that company.

The deal was, I would be released from my job duties if a colleague needed me to represent them at a case or needed to discuss bullying or sickness issues. The company would also require me to come to meetings about pay, annual leave, major incidents (i.e. someone was injured at work) or they needed to move offices etc.

I really was naive at first, I thought it would be a couple of hours a month at best. Boy was i wrong. It was like a second job, and my real job was suffering, so they released me from my job to carry out the role and paid for someone to cover my job.

I spent most of my time being called to meetings by the company not members. The company were relocating and it is cheaper for them to discuss this with one employee who is elected to represent all employees by the employees about this matter than all employees individually.

For a Rep, I had to have so much knowledge to represent the employees correctly (laws, disability rights, racial discrimination, equal pay etc). The union paid for this training (from membership fees). It enabled the union to offer a good standard of representation, or employees would go to another union if the knowledge was not effective.

I also had to do company wide payrises, changes in pensions, training audits, new policies and restructures/cuts/job losses.

I actually only had 5 cases of individual employees. Of which I saved the company thousands by pointing out what the company failed to do. Should this had gone to court the company would have paid out millions. TUs are almost like mock tribunals, if you as a company cant succeed against a TU Rep, you probably wont win in court. 

Only one went to court and that employee had their legal costs covered by the union (again from membership fees). 

One of my cases for example was of a woman who applied and got the job part/time to work 10-2pm, i.e. whilst her child was at school. But she got an email a year into the role that it was changing to 12-4pm. This was a change in her contract, without negotiation and as she was a mother, it unfairly disadvantaged her and left her no alternative but to leave. If this went to court she would have won. So they changed her contract back (the reason was desk space rotas... apparently).

I only did this role for a year (9months of it full time), I refused to stand again. It was no fun. Of course it meant the new person would have to be trained and get the experience. It is also one of those jobs that if you are bad at it, people wont vote for you again. Its a personal vote not a 'party'. So when I hear that people have been TUs for a few years, great - experienced, trained, voted back in every year so respected and this has to be good for the company.

When I stood down, I stopped doing the role but went back to my job. Should I have needed to be trained on things I missed, the company paid for that but they paid for everyone else anyway.

If I stayed as the rep, I would have probably screwed up my own career and stayed on the same payscale, my colleagues would progress/promoted/get trained more etc, but I would be stuck on the pay of the job I was in whilst elected. 

In the case of a teacher, they could have started being a rep as a normal teacher, but 5 years later could have been head of year or deputy head or even a head and had better pension contributions, salary etc. Its not an easy decision to make to be a rep.

Plus lets me honest, you'll annoy a few managers too - although that is what the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act is for, to stop you being targeted/victimised because you are challenging management on decisions as a rep.

Back to my question, I would be intrested to know what union does all of this work to save the company millions and gets the employees to pay. It is a rep for their company, a role they pay for, the trade union is just the 'brand' of trade union employees choose.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on November 28, 2014 at 5:00

I'm obviously way out of date but it was the Association of Broadcasting Staff (ABS ) which merged with Natke and I think is now called BETA.

I'm not trying to denigrate the work that the union reps do, just puzzled.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on November 25, 2014 at 8:59

This is all backlash from St Ann's.

• ▶ Reply