Is Fórsa Trade Union membership fees worth it for Public sector employees

Peanuts20 said:
The only reason I could ever see these days for being in a union is for support in a HR/Grievance/disciplanary sessions.
Click to expand...
This is why I'm a union member. I view it as an insurance policy (which may or not pay if called on) which underpins my job security. Should there be a cull I expect that the non-union members will be first in the crosshairs.

NoRegretsCoyote said:
Any individual can free ride from the sacrifices made by colleagues who are union members.
Click to expand...
Anyone, just not everyone. I view unions as somewhat of a necessary evil.
 
michaelm said:
This is why I'm a union member. I view it as an insurance policy (which may or not pay if called on) which underpins my job security. Should there be a cull I expect that the non-union members will be first in the crosshairs.

Anyone, just not everyone. I view unions as somewhat of a necessary evil.
Click to expand...

If there is a cull as you call it, there is zero protection granted to union members that is not granted to non-union members. It is the role that is made redundant and not the person. If a company decided to use union membership as a selection criteria for redundancy, they would lose an unfair dismissal case. There are reasons to be in unions....That's not one.
 
Maybe so. My view is that should they want to reduce numbers they may take the path of lease resistance, look at non-union people and make some of their roles redundant.
 
Concrete said:
"Who would negotiate such pay rises on your behalf if no one was in the union?"
Click to expand...

It’s ultimately an individual’s responsibility to negotiate his/her remuneration and it’s a fallacy to assume that a union can always achieve a better deal on your behalf.

If an individual is particularly valuable to an organisation, he/she would be better going it alone. Employers are more likely to give a decent salary increase if they’re not compelled to give it to all other grade equivalents, including the duffers.

That said, it can be a convenience to employers to deal only with one negotiating party rather than with each individual employee.

The union movement still has an important role to play, for example, in ensuring decent health and safety standards (dockyard workers spring to mind). There are still many unscrupulous employers around (take a look at some WRC decisions).

Unions need to go back to their roots and take their heads out of the trough.
 
michaelm said:
Maybe so. My view is that should they want to reduce numbers they may take the path of lease resistance, look at non-union people and make some of their roles redundant.
Click to expand...
My experience is that the desire is usually to get the union members out and not the non-union ones. It's easier to do a collective deal to exit a group of people then potentially having to negotiate with individuals and do each case on a one by one basis. I'm not suggesting people are made redundant because of union membership, but it is often easier to do so and if they have legacy T&C's then it can be desirable for new owners to exit them and hire others at a cheaper cost.

As for payrises, it depends on the company. In a tech firm for example, it's quite common for someone to say to their boss, I've an offer from somewhere else, here is what they are offering, match it or I'm off. The need for unions has reduced in a society with a better educated and more mobile workforce.

There is no better illustration of the decline of unions then what is happening in banking. Imagine in the 70's if 3 (Danske, KBC and Ulster) of the high street banks said they were closing, it would have been a nationwide strike. Now it's a case of "grand so, lets do a deal"

I'm not anti-union by the way and was a member of one in the UK. I've seen some good union reps in the past and they can perform a necessary and important role. But in my experience it tends to be the exception and not the norm.
 
The issue in the public sector is that:
  1. All staff benefit from pay rises whether union member or not
  2. There is never compulsory redundancy anyway so being a union member makes little difference in that regard
The main benefit is private. The union will help if you have a grievance. Is that worth up to €400 a year? It seems like pretty expensive insurance.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
The issue in the public sector is that:
  1. All staff benefit from pay rises whether union member or not
  2. There is never compulsory redundancy anyway so being a union member makes little difference in that regard
The main benefit is private. The union will help if you have a grievance. Is that worth up to €400 a year? It seems like pretty expensive insurance.
Click to expand...
Well said NoRegretsCoyote. Like Pound an, I've been toying round with the idea of finishing my Forsa membership. I joined shortly after joining the HSE in 2015. In my experience they pick their battles & are quite cosy with management.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
The issue in the public sector is that:
  1. All staff benefit from pay rises whether union member or not
  2. There is never compulsory redundancy anyway so being a union member makes little difference in that regard
The main benefit is private. The union will help if you have a grievance. Is that worth up to €400 a year? It seems like pretty expensive insurance.
Click to expand...
All true.

If you are in a niche area with few union members the union probably won't get involved if that niche is messed around with. Strength in numbers. If you dilute the membership then you can't really complain if you lose all bargaining power.

But have to agree they are in decline. I wonder how that will play out going forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top