verylittlehelps.com

Very Little Helps => All departments => Topic started by: optout on 13-06-17, 10:16PM

Title: should union membership be subsidized?
Post by: optout on 13-06-17, 10:16PM
Question; do you think that those who are on a minimum wage protected by law(which eventually we will be) should have to pay to be in a union? Or should membership be an automatic (optout-able) right that is automatically subsidized by the better paid members?

What problems would this raise?
Does it already raise ethical questions or doesn't it? etc...

Title: Re: should union membership be subsidized?
Post by: notsofunny on 13-06-17, 11:53PM

If The so called better paid  8-), Subsidized the lower paid then they them self would end up Low paid  :(, seeing as most Tesco workers are going to be part time or low hour workers, subs are more than likely have to go up by more than 3 or 4 times the rate they are today,

and yes why should someone fund the benefits of the others ?

One way to fund the lower paid subs , is to stop the payments to the Labour party ,
Title: Re: should union membership be subsidized?
Post by: picktocube on 14-06-17, 11:46AM
So,if another companies workers are better paid than Tesco ,you really think that they should  pay union membership for the Tesco workers . The way it is at the moment is one rate regardless of what rate of pay you are on ,regardless of which company you work for.
It is your choice if you join. No-one is twisting your arm .
Title: Re: should union membership be subsidized?
Post by: Duracell on 14-06-17, 12:56PM
For such a scenario to be demanded justification would have to ultimately establish that employment benefits are as a direct result of unionism.

That may prove problematic especially given the stance some have with USDAW at present.
Title: Re: should union membership be subsidized?
Post by: JL on 14-06-17, 02:31PM
No it shouldn't
Title: Re: should union membership be subsidized?
Post by: Tornado on 18-06-17, 04:14AM
Being union membership is an individual option then it is up to you to be member or not. Should the value of that payment  being considered for those who are on minimum wage or special or specific circumstances I think so but as I mention before it is your option.
Title: Re: should union membership be subsidized?
Post by: Loki on 18-06-17, 08:06AM
No. Not at all
Title: Re: should union membership be subsidized?
Post by: OpShunned on 18-06-17, 08:16AM
Two years time Optout, and in theory, everyone could be on at least 9 pound an hour.

Would it be fair to those who's wages have stagnated to pay more now, and then pay those who already pay more possibly pay less in the future to maintain parity?

Could be a small part of the equation perhaps?


Title: Re: should union membership be subsidized?
Post by: OpShunned on 18-06-17, 08:49AM
* in essence, some of us lower paid members may get a bigger wage increase percentage wise than others who see theirs stagnate in some ways. The NLW requirements could see the lower paid realise steeper pay increases?
Title: Re: should union membership be subsidized?
Post by: Grifter on 18-06-17, 09:24PM
Also, it would mean you wouldn't have a choice of Union and all would be stuck with USDAW.
Title: Re: should union membership be subsidized?
Post by: CoffeeGate on 19-06-17, 10:37AM
Id rather see my wages stay the same for another year than give anything to that p**s poor excuse of a union, the quicker people realise the union is a waste of a tenner a month the better.