Virgin Media Closing Albert Dock

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by richard1960

Thats very good news about the woolies workers and yes its still worth paying into your union.

I just hope the "freeloaders" who often boast about not paying into a union but getting the benefits are too embarassed to accept the money the union has won.

If you were not a union member at the time or failed to keep your union membership going after the redundancies then you are entitled to nothing, no so freeloaders allowed.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Peter_

That will not apply above though so a separate issue.

Why won't it apply, where is the money coming from?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That's a ridiculous statement - calling non union members "freeloaders" and wishing them less well than union members.

People have their reasons for not joining unions and in this case, Woolies going bust was prolly the last thing on one's mind when coming to that decision.

And while we're on the subject of unions and paying into them, see the RMT union's top bod pension arrangements for details. "The working class can lick my arse I've got an f-off pension at last".

I sympathise with trade union members who, for example, pay trade union subscriptions and are prepared to face the possible consequences of taking industrial action in order to achieve a pay rise, only to see a non union colleague who has done nothing to help, receive the pay rise too.

It's a bit like two houses where both get burgled. One has paid insurance, yet the other that hasn't still gets reimbursed for the stolen items.

You do have a point about some Trade Union leaders though, i've met a few...

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

Mine will continue, don't you worry about that

Companies can't go around breaking employment law and get away with it.

A lot do though...

An example is the National Minimum Wage. With the PAYE, NI and Social Security systems, it shouldn't be too difficult to identify anyone being paid too little. However, the Government only take action if someone complains, but if they do they may face consequences by their employer (including dismissal if they have worked their for less than one year.)

Btw, the present Government is currently reviewing employment law. Suggestions have included scrapping as much employment protection as is possible and increasing the unfair dismissal criteria from one to two years.

It was originally one year, the Thatcher Govt. increased it to two, Blair reduced it to one again and I think it likely that the coalition will make it two again.

---------- Post added at 17:27 ---------- Previous post was at 17:24 ----------



Usually only the union members will get this payment.

Originally Posted by Peter_

If you were not a union member at the time or failed to keep your union membership going after the redundancies then you are entitled to nothing, no so freeloaders allowed.

I would imagine that if a group of former employees have been identified as being due a payment, trade union membership is irrelevant, unless this payment is different to the one i'm thinking of...

[Nopanic]

Id agree if there is reason found by the union for a payment it'll be for all employees ..

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by No Panic

Id agree if there is reason found by the union for a payment it'll be for all employees ..

This will be a shock to some and they know who they are

I have joined the CWU because our dept believe it is our only course of action . I am not happy about it seeing my stance on unions but at least it's not the bloody miners union and i have not seen the CWU beating people up, smashing windows and setting houses on fire yet .

There are lots of reasons why we have joined and it not for me to post them on this forum. The CWU did meet with us and told us they have seen a very large increase in membership since the Albert dock closure and that they are looking at full recognition soon.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Why won't it apply, where is the money coming from?





I would imagine that if a group of former employees have been identified as being due a payment, trade union membership is irrelevant, unless this payment is different to the one i'm thinking of...

As it is the union who took action over this then ONLY the union members will receive a payout, no non union members will be included or members who failed to keep up their subscriptions.

Take it from me this is how it works as non union members cannot be included and it is their loss.

Woolworths went into liquidation hence the tax payer footing the bill Virgin Media is just closing a site so it would be the company who would pay.

---------- Post added at 10:37 ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Nopanic

Id agree if there is reason found by the union for a payment it'll be for all employees ..

As above if you are not in the union no possible future payout, union membership has its merits and this is one of them.

[RichardCoulter]

Well, you know the ins and outs of this much more than me, but i've never come across a case like this before.

Usually, for example, if a case on equal pay for women is won, all female employees would be entitled to a payout, regardless of trade union membership or not. Whether that's fair is another matter...

Please keep us all updated

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Well, you know the ins and outs of this much more than me, but i've never come across a case like this before.

Usually, for example, if a case on equal pay for women is won, all female employees would be entitled to a payout, regardless of trade union membership or not. Whether that's fair is another matter...

Please keep us all updated

If a case has been taken up by a union then that has been done on behalf of its members of that union and not any non members, hence any payout would only be for the members as they continued to pay their subscription, plus if you stop paying your subscription you would not be entitled to anything either.

It is down to personal choice and if those non members wanted to pursue a claim they would have to go through their own lawyers.

This is one of the reasons for paying out your union subscriptions and continuing to do so after the site closes as all unions have a legal arm.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Any payments made to former Woolworths staff through this scheme will ultimately come from the National Insurance Fund ie the fund that we pay into to meet the cost of non means tested social security benefits.

Originally Posted by Peter_

That will not apply above though so a separate issue.

since the company (namely VM) is still trading then VM will foot the bill for any redundancy payments.If VM where insolvent then any redundancy payments would be paid from the national insurance fund and dealt with by the DTI .
There is no special redundancy payments for union members only .The unions will negotiate on behalf of all workers not just members .The case with Woolworths is a matter of interpretation of the redundancy law as all those payments are being made by the National Insurance fund .The union is merely highlighting a perceived injustice

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by martyh

since the company (namely VM) is still trading then VM will foot the bill for any redundancy payments.If VM where insolvent then any redundancy payments would be paid from the national insurance fund and dealt with by the DTI .
There is no special redundancy payments for union members only .The unions will negotiate on behalf of all workers not just members .The case with Woolworths is a matter of interpretation of the redundancy law as all those payments are being made by the National Insurance fund .The union is merely highlighting a perceived injustice

Actually it is just on behalf of the union members hence the requirement to continue with your subscription.

Originally Posted by Peter_

Actually it is just on behalf of the union members hence the requirement to continue with your subscription.

so it will be comming from union funds then

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by martyh

so it will be comming from union funds then

If you mean any compensation it would be from the company but any legal action will be funded by the union hence if you are not a member you will not be part of any legal action taken and therefore not entitled to anything.

Originally Posted by Peter_

If you mean any compensation it would be from the company but any legal action will be funded by the union hence if you are not a member you will not be part of any legal action taken and therefore not entitled to anything.

mmm i think you are reading the woolworth article incorrectly ,it is for the RPO to decide who is entitled to payments not the unions ,all the union have done is highlight a injustice .The only employees who won't receive the payment are those who worked in stores with less than 20 workers

“However, I’m once again bitterly disappointed that a Tribunal has limited the scope of the award. The fact that some of our members won’t be compensated simply because their store had less than 20 employees is just plain wrong and shows the gaping loophole and injustice of the current legislation. Nearly 30,000 employees were made redundant from Woolworths at the same time and for the same reason, so to suggest 3,000 of them didn’t constitute a collective redundancy is a nonsense.”

http://www.usdaw.org.uk/newsevents/n...oncompens.aspx

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by Peter_

If you mean any compensation it would be from the company but any legal action will be funded by the union hence if you are not a member you will not be part of any legal action taken and therefore not entitled to anything.

Are you claiming that over 90% of Woolworths employees were USDAW members?

The shopworkers union Usdaw has won compensation worth up to massive £67.8 million for over 24,000 former employees of Woolworths made redundant when the firm collapsed at the end of 2008.

The iconic high street retailer went into administration on 27 November 2008 and by early January 2009 the administrators had closed all of Woolworths stores, offices and distribution centres and made nearly 30,000 people redundant in the process.

Unfortunately, as occurred in a similar case involving former employees of Ethel Austin, the compensation award excludes all former employees who happened to work in smaller stores where fewer than 20 redundancies were made. This means around 3,000 employees who worked in around 180 of the 814 stores covered by today’s judgement may never receive compensation.

http://www.usdaw.org.uk/newsevents/n...oncompens.aspx

[RichardCoulter]

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

In reality, I believe that all those entitled to a payout as a result of the unions' action in highlighting the non compliance of redundancy laws, will receive compensation, regardless of membership or not of said union.

There may well be cases where a former employee who is a trade union member will not receive any money because they worked in a store with less than 20 employees. Conversely, a former employee who was not a trade union member, who worked in a store with more than 20 employees, WILL receive a payout of the unions' action!!!

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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

In reality, I believe that all those entitled to a payout as a result of the unions' action in highlighting the non compliance of redundancy laws, will receive compensation, regardless of membership or not of said union.

There may well be cases where a former employee who is a trade union member will not receive any money because they worked in a store with less than 20 employees. Conversely, a former employee who was not a trade union member, who worked in a store with more than 20 employees, WILL receive a payout of the unions' action!!!

That will most likely be the case in some instances ,but then the unions only have themselves to blame for losing the closed shop