verylittlehelps

[gmod]Poll merged with "Managers as GA's Rep" topic due to them being of similar content. Magyar.[/gmod]

What are your opinions regarding a Line Manager being an USDAW Representative for Team Leaders and Customer Assistants?

Is it conflict of interest?

Has anyone encountered difficulties because of this?

Has this been discussed at ADM's?

Has anyone found it useful and advantageous?

Should ALL Managers be members of the managerial and supervisory section of USDAW called SATA?

SATA: 'This is a special section of the union representing employees in middle and lower management or with administrative or technical responsibilities.'

I was a manager and an Usdaw/Sata rep for over 15 years.

I found no conflict of interest and the amount of union "business" i was called to rep at suggests that was a view held by the staff too.
Both roles are there to make sure company policy and the law are applied fairly and consistently.

GA's would ask for me because my knowledge of the policies for people/SYA etc was very high because I received both the Union training and the Tesco management training. There was never a hint of  "you're one of them you can't rep me". In fact other managers disliked having me in their meetings as a rep because it made sure they were towing the correct line with regards to policy.

In meetings you just need to be absolutely clear which hat you're wearing, although in managers meetings I would challenge anything that was not right, such as asking the management team to prioritise members of staff for overtime (remember that?) that only earned single time.

You will never find USDAW claiming its a "conflict of interest" but in my opinion it is.......i would never take a manager in as a rep as i don't trust them 1 ayota!  Maybe thats just the way things are regarding SYP and such in distribution, but its a big NO from me.

I have 4 union reps to choose from if i ever needed advice or represting. If he's in id allways use the manager union rep he seems to know more technicaltys and times scales to get people off

Totally wrong with a definate conflict of interest!!

Quote from: woody505 on 28-10-11, 02:04PM
I have 4 union reps to choose from if i ever needed advice or represting. If he's in id allways use the manager union rep he seems to know more technicaltys and times scales to get people off

I understand what you are saying. However, all Union Reps should be aware of technicalities and time scales.

Quote from: GuinnessMan on 28-10-11, 06:46PM
Totally wrong with a definate conflict of interest!!

Wow, with an argument as strong as that you have really reversed my opinion on this!

I offer up that there must be as many reps who will never really be reps wearing the dam badge and if your capable to do it then what is the problem...should we not take there contributions either, exclude them to there own branch of the union etc ?  Bitter grapes probs from some who dont get off of stuff not because there reps were c**p and managers but because they were unable to regardless who was doing it maybe ?

I am a reasonably new rep, and also a reaqsonably new options candidate, and am proud to say that in my union career aswell as in my tesco career I am known for personal integrity.

There is no conflict of interest in my case, although in my union training I noticed other managers there which I think definately suffer a conflict of interest, and indeed are suspected as wanting to be a rep so they could influence a managers agenda to union business.

Sorry Munkey i dont understand your last paragraph.

In my area i am an USDAW rep who represents managers. Is that a conflict of interest ? No, union members deserve the representation they deserve be that by managers or G.As. Like all reps if they dont do a good job they get no members going to them or they dont get re-elected as reps.

I will clarify. I don't believe members see a conflict of interest with me, however i have met an existing manager when at union training who had some very harsh views on staff members. We had a few words during the training about a couple of subjects where we had very different opinions, which the tutor noted herself, and weeks later when I met the tutor again said to me that the union office had heard concerns from staff that they would not use this manager, and felt that she was taking union training so that she could enforce the company standpoint where she was supposed to be a rep.

I was giving 1 example that I have come accross that leads me to understand how some people would see it as a conflict of interest, but in no way was I trying to make out that all managers who are reps are like this. I have also met a senior manager in a different format who also does great work for usdaw and successfully seems to wear each hat at the appropriate times.

I have not represented a manager formally yet, but have influenced a decision to the positive about one informally in my shop, and firmly believe that in the current climate and direction the company is taking that all managers should have good reps available to them.

Of course Managers should have good reps available to them. ALL members of Management should be members of SATA with a SATA Rep to represent them.

But a Manager being a UNION rep for GA's? No. Conflict of interest. May not be at first, but eventually will be. No matter what sort of person they may be.

In certain instances problems and conflicts can arise, but because that potential is there should it be considered not right in general... probably not, it seems an ever increasing thought that people generally can't apply a common sense approach when the need presents itself, so the potential for mistakes should be removed.

Deal with any issues as and when they arise is the way to go surely as they are not always present.

Can MM be USDAW reps without conflict or does it depend on the individual carrying out the role ?

Re : the poll,
is the poll about wether mm can be reps without conflict, or is it about  the
individual carrying out the role.
I see two questions (both of which I would answer yes to 8-))

Vote Yes or No if you do not think it depends on the individual.

Vote Individual if you think it does depend.

I think we are all aware that there are good reps, bad reps and downright ugly reps. The same is true for managers. If an individual manager is a "good" rep - as in honest, diligent, knows what they are talking about AND has the best interests of the member at heart, then i can see no problem with them representing GA's. Their own conscience will let them know when a particular circumstance is a conflict of interest, and if it is then they will decline to represent the individual.
It depends upon the integrity of the individual manager.
Having said all that, i have yet to meet a manager who is a rep who i respect enough to know that to be true. I just beleive that it is possible they exist. ;)

But even if there was a Manager who had all the attributes that you refer to, the fact remains that they have different responsibilities to that of a GA. These responsibilities include Investigatory and Disciplinary meetings. Informal Discussions and Reviews. More often than not, there will be a conflict of interest.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have Reps or even become Reps themselves. However, they should be members of SATA and be SATA Representatives.

This happens within other Companies that recognise other Unions.

Why is it that Usdaw has everything arse backwards?

I take your point Magyar, but as this is a non-specific question, mine was a generic sort of answer. I'm not sure if its "more often than not" that there would be a conflict of interest, but it certainly would happen.

Of course it does beg the opposite question - should a GA represent a manager, or would there be be too much of a conflict of interest there as well?

I was expecting this question. How is it a conflict of interest? A GA does not Manage a Manager. A GA cannot conduct meetings such a Disciplinary Meetings.

So how is that a conflict of interest?

It wouldnt happen in Distribution mainly because there would be a lack of trust from the employee that the Manager would act in his/her best interests.
Im not saying this is the case as there are Managers i would trust to represent Members vigorously but on past experience they wouldnt get asked to represent many guys from the floor due to trust issues.

It has never happened in our Store. And never would.

In response to Magyar - as a GA i would hesitate to represent my line manager in some situations as i feel it would affect our working relationship.
Having said that, i have represented other managers as a GA. I expect there are no more conflicts of interest between a GA representing a manager or anyone else for that matter. (that was a long winded way of saying i agree with you)

Quote from: Spiritoftheage on 07-02-12, 11:38AM

Having said all that, i have yet to meet a manager who is a rep who i respect enough to know that to be true. I just beleive that it is possible they exist. ;)

*Waves hello* I existed

So you are the one that slipped through the net.  :D

A manager being a rep for non managerial staff is slightly worrying for said manager if nothing else.
Scenario, manager represents a lower role employee, as part of process the rep highlights failures (which is usually the norm) in process leading up to representation, so you now have a rep (Manager) highlighting and drawing attention to the failures of his fellow managers or his senior managers.
That's gonna go down well, and considering how dispensable a Manger is compared to the average Jo, I'm surprised anyone would want to do it. Highlighting your managers (who does your review) failings or the Manager you will need support from at another time and that won't influence the way they would represent???? 
Pull the other one !!!! They have orange vests not halos.

As an USDAW rep and a new options candidate I have given this matter some thought previously and have decided that as all reps ought to be elected that after sign off, I ought to step down as a rep and have an election held where I would run again. If the members want me to be their rep I'm more than happy and confident I would maintain the impartiality needed to represent them.

I only hope that others would do the same.

Tend to see this question the other way round - Can an USDAW rep be mm?  Personally I think a good rep would be a bloody good manager.  Re the partnership agreement, there should be no conflict - in terms of GOOD management the same.  That naivety is a choice by the way, not a lack of understanding lol. 

Yes. After standing down.

 :) get the arguments against totally - as I said I see the question the other way round - not would I like my rep to be a manager, but would I like my manager to be a rep.  Tho' I supose I am thinking of people with a passion for trade unionism rather than those who take on the role cos it looks good when you're on options.  A good rep is a good rep whatever, and a lousey one will be lousey whatever job they do - we've all met them.