# No-one is forced to be in a union? Discuss.



## ajapale (4 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> No-one is forced to be in a union.



This question was raised in the budget 2012 forum.

aj
mos


----------



## Deiseblue (4 Dec 2011)

A number of employers have made it a condition of employment that employees become Union members and remain so for the term of their employment.

It is felt that such a condition of employment may be unconstitutional but this has never been tested - the inference being that this system suits both the employers & employees in question.


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> A number of employers have made it a condition of employment that employees become Union members and remain so for the term of their employment.
> 
> It is felt that such a condition of employment may be unconstitutional but this has never been tested - the inference being that this system suits both employers & employees.


No employer would ever willingly require employees join a union. Your post is very one-eyed and/or fanciful.


----------



## becky (4 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> No employer would ever willingly require employees join a union. Your post is very one-eyed and/or fanciful.



My friend in Dublin Bus informed me being a member of a union was mandatory so it seems there are some employers.


----------



## ashambles (4 Dec 2011)

Well some unions have a remarkable view on people with no interest in joining unions, this is the text of a full page ad in one of the Irish union magazines illustrated by a picture of a sponge.



> Is there a sponge in your workplace?
> 
> Over the years Union members have campaigned to improve your terms and conditions and give you a say in your workplace. But some people benefit without playing their part. By not joining a union, people are taking advantage of your contributions and weakening your bargaining power. So, if there's a sponge in your workplace give them a union application form!



So some colleagues need to insultingly labeled - sponges. They also need to be identified (where's data protection when you need it?), and persuaded to join.

To people who can see the subtext or undertone here, this a useful insight. And again this is what they're prepared to publish publicly. 

[broken link removed] (page 42)

The "us v them" mentality is what unions thrive on, any opportunity to find "them" is never passed up. Be it the private sector, the management, the government, or even their own workmates.


----------



## Deiseblue (4 Dec 2011)

I must admit I was that soldier !

In my role as a Union Rep the most frustrating part of the job was dealing with queries from non union colleagues - along the lines of " what's the union doing about this " , " when can we expect the next pay rise ".

Did I think they were riding on the coat tails of the Union - yes , did I ever refer to them as spongers or parasites - no.

I simply saw their queries as a marketing opportunity & always handed them an application form & advised them that the info they required could be found in the monthly mag & on the dedicated website - both of which they could access as members.

In this way we managed to quadruple union membership in our Department , something that we never would have achieved with an adversarial approach - you are correct the labelling of people as " spongers " is totally wrong - far better the polite & patient approach.


----------



## ajapale (4 Dec 2011)

*Closed shop Agreements - Wikipedia*

Closed shop agreements are a feature of the industrial relations landscape in many countries around the world.

[broken link removed]



> A closed shop exists where it is effectively a condition of  employment that the worker should be a member of a specified trade union  .
> 
> Closed shops         may operate at a formal or informal level; informal in the sense  that there may be no written agreement with management , but an  understanding exists         that employees will be union members.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sue Ellen (4 Dec 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> In my role as a Union Rep the most frustrating part of the job was dealing with queries from non union colleagues - along the lines of " what's the union doing about this " , " when can we expect the next pay rise ".



In my role as a Union Rep the most annoying part of the job was dealing with people who only wanted to join when they ran into problems.  To justify this they always came up with ridiculous reasons as to why they were not previously able to join, and expected the rest of us gombeens, who had been contributing for years, to believe them.  Invariably they felt that they should get the support of the other members if their situation required a strike to sort their problem.


----------



## hf_41 (4 Dec 2011)

*Unions not mandatory*

You do not have to be in a union.

SOme employers have agreements with Unions that mean they encourage all new employees to join the one union so they do not have to deal with different unios.  Also existing workers may not like it if you join the company and not the union.  Dependson the industry.  SOme are very traditional and joining a union is seen as standard.

Others - like in the IT industry - have little or no unions and even if they have employers do not regocnise them(the unions that is)


----------



## Complainer (4 Dec 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> A number of employers have made it a condition of employment that employees become Union members and remain so for the term of their employment.


Are there any current examples of this?


becky said:


> My friend in Dublin Bus informed me being a member of a union was mandatory so it seems there are some employers.



No disrespect, but I'd really like to see some kind of official confirmation of this.



ashambles said:


> Well some unions have a remarkable view on people with no interest in joining unions, this is the text of a full page ad in one of the Irish union magazines illustrated by a picture of a sponge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is absolutely nothing wrong with proactive recruitment by union members, though the insulting language is certainly inappropriate. Still, it seems to be generally acceptable to refer to union officials as 'beards' here on AAM, so maybe what's good for the goose?


----------



## ajapale (4 Dec 2011)

Does an actor have to be a member of actors equity to get employment in the industry in Ireland?


----------



## Time (4 Dec 2011)

Yes.


----------



## AlbacoreA (4 Dec 2011)

If a place is heavily unionized, it can put you in a very awkward situation if you are not. 

I remember one situation where there was a one day stoppage, union workers got docked pay, non union members were told by management they'd couldn't take leave and would be disciplined if they didn't come in (walk past their colleagues/strikers). As a result lots of people who didn't really care, joined the union.


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2011)

becky said:


> My friend in Dublin Bus informed me being a member of a union was mandatory so it seems there are some employers.


There are situations where unions have bullied organisations into enforced union recognition and there are others, like Dublin Bus, where the unions and the organisation are the same thing.


----------



## Complainer (4 Dec 2011)

Time said:


> Yes.



Says who? I've engaged actors in Ireland for corporate video work, and there was certainly no obligation for them to be union members.


----------



## ashambles (4 Dec 2011)

> There is absolutely nothing wrong with proactive recruitment by union members, though the insulting language is certainly inappropriate. Still, it seems to be generally acceptable to refer to union officials as 'beards' here on AAM, so maybe what's good for the goose?


What the CWU guys were proposing goes considerably beyond third party name calling on discussion forums, it's labeling and encouraging the singling out individuals in the real world - what some on the receiving end might see it as bullying. 

Also the reason non-union staff often end up needing to ask unions to help with problems is because within some dysfunctional organizations the unions have somehow ended up in control of what in normal companies are HR roles.

Even on this site you'll see advice to public sector staff with issues on something like pensions being told to ask their union rep. I'm pretty sure I've even heard of public sector staff being redirected by HR staff to union reps. 

No wonder union reps can start sighing about how well now you need us - when the system is designed that way.


----------



## Time (4 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> Says who? I've engaged actors in Ireland for corporate video work, and there was certainly no obligation for them to be union members.


The main theatres won't allow non union actors perform.


----------



## Complainer (4 Dec 2011)

Time said:


> The main theatres won't allow non union actors perform.


Source please? And how significant are 'the main theatres' for actors today, given the amount of work that goes on for TV and in regional arts centres etc?


ashambles said:


> What the CWU guys were proposing goes considerably beyond third party name calling on discussion forums, it's labeling and encouraging the singling out individuals in the real world - what some on the receiving end might see it as bullying.


Some on the receiving end of the repeated 'beards' and 'bearded brethren' might see that as bullying too.


ashambles said:


> Also the reason non-union staff often end up needing to ask unions to help with problems is because within some dysfunctional organizations the unions have somehow ended up in control of what in normal companies are HR roles.
> 
> Even on this site you'll see advice to public sector staff with issues on something like pensions being told to ask their union rep. I'm pretty sure I've even heard of public sector staff being redirected by HR staff to union reps.
> 
> No wonder union reps can start sighing about how well now you need us - when the system is designed that way.


The system is designed so that union members, who pay for a support service from their union, get that service. It's not really that difficult.


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> Some on the receiving end of the repeated 'beards' and 'bearded brethren' might see that as bullying too.


 

As the person who, I think, introduced the phrase 'bearded brethren' to AAM I feel it is only fair to put it in context. I started using the phrase in discussions where the term 'fat cats' was being used. I fail to see how a phrase used by a powerless poster on the inter-web thingie can be seen as on par with an internal trade union directive, informal though it may have been.

I take it from your comments above that it is the facial hair reference that causes you angst but 'brethren' is fine, yes?


----------



## ajapale (4 Dec 2011)

Can posters keep perjorative terms such as "beards", "spongers" and "fat cats" etc to threads in the depths please.

Please keep this thread on topic to discuss   No-one is forced to be in a union?

thanks

aj (mod)


----------



## Mpsox (5 Dec 2011)

From an employers perspective, there are merits in requiring staff to join only 1 union, in that it makes negotiation easier and also removes the risk and issues caused by inter-union disputes. Nothing more frustrating then having 2 unions having a bun-fight over issues of "principle".


----------



## Hoagy (5 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> Are there any current examples of this?


 
Here's an extract from the electricians' REA:

All foremen, chargehands, and electricians employed by the ECA and the AECI
hereafter called the employer bodies shall be or become members of the TEEU​hereafter called the Union and must hold current union cards.


----------



## Time (5 Dec 2011)

I have seen a similar one for a meat factory.


----------



## STEINER (5 Dec 2011)

In an ideal world an employee should be free to choose union membership or not.  I don't know why someone would not join if it meant greater protection and assistance in the event of some issue arising.  In some workplaces I imagine there would be pressure to join.  Talking to a schoolteacher friend a while ago, he told me that he had no interest in ASTI per se, but felt he would benefit from membership in the event of something serious cropping up; he specifically mentioned something like a false accusation of harassment/misconduct/abuse being levelled.


----------



## ajapale (5 Dec 2011)

So is it fair to say that the assertion that "_no one is forced to be a member of a trade union_" is not true, at least in respect to certain employments and categories of employee?


----------



## huskerdu (5 Dec 2011)

ajapale said:


> So is it fair to say that the assertion that "_no one is forced to be a member of a trade union_" is not true, at least in respect to certain employments and categories of employee?



I was always of the opinion that closed shops did exist in Ireland. 

However, the only anecdotal evidence that I personally have is that  a friend of mine worked for a major bank. On day one, she was told that she had to be in the union. but, I don't know what would have happened if she had refused so I don't know if it was a formal or informal closed shop.


----------



## Mpsox (5 Dec 2011)

huskerdu said:


> I was always of the opinion that closed shops did exist in Ireland.
> 
> However, the only anecdotal evidence that I personally have is that a friend of mine worked for a major bank. On day one, she was told that she had to be in the union. but, I don't know what would have happened if she had refused so I don't know if it was a formal or informal closed shop.


 
Personally speaking I worked for a major bank for years and was never in the union and I'd estimate that no more then half the staff there were members.

I have heard similer stories about the Civil Service, not so much that you had to join but that you wouldn't get anywhere if you didn't. Given that the couple of times I had interviews for public sector jobs that someone who said he was from the union took the interview minutes, that doesn't surprise me


----------



## ajapale (5 Dec 2011)

Hoagy said:


> Here's an extract from the electricians' REA:
> 
> All foremen, chargehands, and electricians employed by the ECA and the AECI
> hereafter called the employer bodies shall be or become members of the TEEU​hereafter called the Union and must hold current union cards.



I dont think this is anecdotal.


----------



## Complainer (5 Dec 2011)

ajapale said:


> I dont think this is anecdotal.


But the REA's are on their way out, aren't they?

[broken link removed]


----------



## Purple (5 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> But the REA's are on their way out, aren't they?
> 
> [broken link removed]



To be replaced by something else which does the same thing.


----------



## Hoagy (5 Dec 2011)

Complainer said:


> But the REA's are on their way out, aren't they?


 
Not quite, the constitutional issue arises where agreements have been binding on an entire sector.

REA's are still binding on the signatories. 

Our agreement is unusual in that the trade union requirement is explicit, but it's certainly implicit in others like Construction and Printing.


----------



## Shawady (6 Dec 2011)

I'm going back 20 years at this stage, but when I had my first summer job with Irish Ferries, I was told I had to join the union. I actually had to go to the union office and join before I took up the job and pay a subscription fee.
I don't even know if the Seamans Union is still in existence now as I believe a lot of the Irish Ferries staff were made redundant a few years back and replaced by non-EU workers. (Maybe there's a lesson in there!)


----------



## Complainer (6 Dec 2011)

Hoagy said:


> Not quite, the constitutional issue arises where agreements have been binding on an entire sector.
> 
> REA's are still binding on the signatories.
> .



But the Government has stated that they will be replaced with something different - right? It would be hard to see Richard Bruton signing off on some new agreement system that involves closed shops.


----------

