I'm a bit taken aback by the anti-union rhetoric that some have shared on here. It seems some have swallowed the kool-aid served up with Daily Express tokens. Although it is many decades since I was a bona fide teacher I was active in one of the teacher unions. By far the biggest workload was in supporting teachers who had come under fire from management for an often trumped-up misdemeanour resulting from a conflict of personality. Fair employment practice came about after years of prolonged campaigning and struggle and a good union rep was worth their weight in gold in seeing that agreed procedures were followed. Too many members of management and school governing bodies were too quick to condemn and would try all sorts of tricks to undermine the agreed procedure. Our union also had a hardship fund and I was grateful for that on one occasion when my employer without notice docked three weeks' wages at a stroke when I had to take time off when one of my kids was born.
Unions came about for a reason. Employers can easily pick off individuals. In a hierarchical structure workers need informed and recognised representation.
one mans option of their union is as unique as the union itself. Your aware I’m speaking from experience of the NUM only.
NUM, where a man could down tools over any issue and the workforce was expected out in support. The union by definition would steer proceedings. A day down was worth more to the cause, than a quick resolution from the management and turning coal.
Since the miners strike 1984/5 unions have lost theIr power, although not their purpose. Having had the opportunity to join two further unions 1990 onwards, which I declined membership.
So if your referring to me drinking kool-aid. Can you elaborate?