* *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
17-12-17, 06:21AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 73678
  • Total Topics: 1612
  • Online Today: 83
  • Online Ever: 826
  • (23-02-15, 06:44PM)
Users Online
Users: 6
Guests: 82
Total: 88

Author Topic: should union membership be subsidized?  (Read 1781 times)

optout

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2256
should union membership be subsidized?
« 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...

I AM NOT A REP, BUT......

notsofunny

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1022
Re: should union membership be subsidized?
« Reply #1 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 ,

picktocube

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1461
Re: should union membership be subsidized?
« Reply #2 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 .

Duracell

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2560
Re: should union membership be subsidized?
« Reply #3 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.
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

JL

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1121
Re: should union membership be subsidized?
« Reply #4 on: 14-06-17, 02:31PM »
No it shouldn't

Tornado

  • VLH Supporter
  • Regular Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 116
Re: should union membership be subsidized?
« Reply #5 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.

Loki

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 3612
  • Justice is the sanction of established injustice
Re: should union membership be subsidized?
« Reply #6 on: 18-06-17, 08:06AM »
No. Not at all
Life is a monstrous demented gag. Madness is the emergency exit.
I will not reply to unsolicited PM's.

OpShunned

  • VLH Supporter
  • Smart Arse
  • ******
  • Posts: 947
Re: should union membership be subsidized?
« Reply #7 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?



OpShunned

  • VLH Supporter
  • Smart Arse
  • ******
  • Posts: 947
Re: should union membership be subsidized?
« Reply #8 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?

Grifter

  • VLH Supporter
  • Regular Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 169
Re: should union membership be subsidized?
« Reply #9 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.

CoffeeGate

  • Regular Pain
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: should union membership be subsidized?
« Reply #10 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.