Virgin Media Closing Albert Dock - Page 15

qasdfdsaq · 22-01-2012, 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Morally, it should only be trade union members who benefit from this.

Incorrect.

Morally, all those who have been wronged by a violation of the law should benefit from this. To suggest otherwise is like saying I can assault, burgle or harrass you but you can only get compensation if you're a member of a union.

Trade unions negotiate on behalf of everybody, not just union members. When agreements are reached it applies to all workers, not just union members. Even if just one employee is a union member all employees of that organisation stand to benefit.

Particularly with respect to employment law, employers have to obey the law whether you are a union member or not.

martyh · 22-01-2012, 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Incorrect.

Morally, all those who have been wronged by a violation of the law should benefit from this.

Trade unions negotiate on behalf of everybody, not just union members. When agreements are reached it applies to all workers, not just union members. Even if just one employee is a union member all employees of that organisation stand to benefit.

spot on

Peter_ · 22-01-2012, 14:38

Any action taken will only benefit union members as this will be taken up on behalf of the membership by the union solicitors and if anyone is not a member at the time then they will not be included in any potential settlement, nothing to do with morality rather membership of the union.

It is different with wage negotiations as non union people still benefit but cases taken up by unions are only on behalf of those members who where and continue to remain members, if a win happens then it will only benefit those members.

If you are not a member then you made your choice a while back.

martyh · 22-01-2012, 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_

Any action taken will only benefit union members as this will be taken up on behalf of the membership by the union solicitors and if anyone is not a member at the time then they will not be included in any potential settlement, nothing to do with morality rather membership of the union.

It is different with wage negotiations as non union people still benefit but cases taken up by unions are only on behalf of those members who where and continue to remain members, if a win happens then it will only benefit those members.

If you are not a member then you made your choice a while back.

Where does it say that ,please provide some evidence .Employment law counts for all workers not just union members ..

Peter_ · 22-01-2012, 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

Where does it say that ,please provide some evidence .Employment law counts for all workers not just union members ..

Anything taken out on behalf of the branch members will not include the non union members, they can take out their own legal challenge though, why do you think we pay our union dues.

martyh · 22-01-2012, 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_

Anything taken out on behalf of the branch members will not include the non union members, they can take out their own legal challenge though, why do you think we pay our union dues.

with respect but that's hogwash

Peter_ · 22-01-2012, 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

with respect but that's hogwash

Why would non members benefit from union members we already know that they will not but if you choose to believe otherwise thats fine by me as oddly the union will have no details of non members on file and nor will they be included in any legal challenge.

martyh · 22-01-2012, 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_

Why would non members benefit from union members we already know that they will not but if you choose to believe otherwise thats fine by me as oddly the union will have no details of non members on file and nor will they be included in any legal challenge.

Any action undertaken by the union/s will affect/benefit all workers not just union members that has always been the case and always will be .I will repeat ,in the case of the woolworths redundency ,indeed any redundency claim it is a matter of law ,the same law that applies to everyone not just union members .It may not be moraly right but such is life

Digital Fanatic · 22-01-2012, 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

Any action undertaken by the union/s will affect/benefit all workers not just union members that has always been the case and always will be .I will repeat ,in the case of the woolworths redundency ,indeed any redundency claim it is a matter of law ,the same law that applies to everyone not just union members .It may not be moraly right but such is life

The VM Albert Dock issue isn't about redundancy money though. The Union are seeking damages from VM for it's members.

Are you saying that someone who hasn't paid in to the Union and the Union have no details for will be entitled to the compensation?

martyh · 22-01-2012, 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

The VM Albert Dock issue isn't about redundancy money though. The Union are seeking damages from VM for it's members.

Are you saying that someone who hasn't paid in to the Union and the Union have no details for will be entitled to the compensation?

In what respect are they seeking damages Peter has compared the issue to that of the woolworths employees so one must assume it is redundancy related and therefore a matter of law

Digital Fanatic · 22-01-2012, 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

In what respect are they seeking damages Peter has compared the issue to that of the woolworths employees so one must assume it is redundancy related and therefore a matter of law

Probably best I don't say any more TBH. We will let you know the outcome as it may be useful for anyone else in a similar position

Peter_ · 22-01-2012, 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

In what respect are they seeking damages Peter has compared the issue to that of the woolworths employees so one must assume it is redundancy related and therefore a matter of law

I said it was good news but not a direct comparison I never stated that it was to be done in a similar way just that it was on behalf of union members only, Digi has filled in the reason as to why.

No real issue as any company should accept that a union will fight them on behalf of their members hence the need to continue with our subscriptions.

martyh · 22-01-2012, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

Probably best I don't say any more TBH. We will let you know the outcome as it may be useful for anyone else in a similar position

I will wait with baited breath

Sephiroth · 22-01-2012, 16:37

Anyway, what's all this to do with the Albert Dock lot?

VM will make the necessary payments to employees, and I'd bet Adecco have some sort of get out with the agency staff; I don't now about those cases, obviously.

martyh · 22-01-2012, 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Anyway, what's all this to do with the Albert Dock lot?

VM will make the necessary payments to employees, and I'd bet Adecco have some sort of get out with the agency staff; I don't now about those cases, obviously.

It would apear that the union have taken out a private law suit on behalf of the members ,although what this has to do with the woolworth case and why it was linked with VM's closure of Albert Dock escapes me