Brendan Barber, the new TUC general secretary has criticised the government for being too ready to listen to employers "bleating" about red tape. In a speech to delegates at the annual TUC conference in Brighton, Mr Barber claimed unions had a responsibility to tell the government when it had "got it wrong".
 | TUC Secretary General Brendan Barber answered your questions on the role of the unions |
He also said it was time for a new chapter in union and government relations and added that he hoped the public services forum which was agreed with the prime minister last week would lead to a "new way of working together". Can unions still influence government policy in areas such as the public sector? Are they flexing their muscles again?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
The public sector isn't there for the good of the people working in it. Government policy ought to be about delivering value to the consumer and taxpayer, not jobs for life to the unions. Think of the money that could be put into essential services if all the padding and waste was stripped out of local authorities.
David, UK
|  The last twenty years have seen the working lives of people get worse and worse  |
I wish they were. The last twenty years have seen the working lives of people get worse and worse - longer hours, bullying managers, low pay. It is time the unions confronted the employers and the bosses and mobilised their members. French workers have shown their power this year. We need to learn from them.
Neil Rogall, UK The private sector is the country's wealth creator; public sector spending is derived from created wealth. It is therefore vital that the creating sector is allowed to compete as efficiently as possible if the country's wealth is to be maximised and money generated to fund our great public services. The unions in their fight for workers' rights must not be allowed to go too far and reduce the wealth creating ability of the country.
David, England
Labour is supposed to be the party of the workers yet this government is only too keen to get into bed with big business and outsource thousands of public service jobs. If the unions continue to fund New Labour they want their heads examining, but I'd hardly call that flexing their muscles. More like prudent financial management.
Kev, UK
| Unions are irrelevant obstacles and have no place in business |
Only a small minority of all workers in this country are members of a trade union. The rest of us have good relationships with our employers, earn pay increases via hard work, consider ourselves as part of driving the business forward and we work in an environment of grown-up respect. The companies with the worst employer-employee relations are always those with trade unions, whilst the majority in this country get on with it. Unions are irrelevant obstacles and have no place in business.
Melanie, UK I am appalled by some of the anti-union comments I have read here. The dynamics of industry have not changed and most working people still need to come together to protect their interests. The brave new world that some of your correspondents live in could be taken away from them at the drop of a hat. If anyone wants to see what happens when the unions are emasculated they need look no further than New Zealand.
Dennis Green, New Zealand
In Gordon Brown's address yesterday, he appears to be telling us that people who are under-paid should sacrifice themselves in order to keep the economy straight, so that the well paid can award themselves inflation busting pay rises. I wasn't a supporter of the unions before, but Mr Brown has certainly pushed me in that direction.
David, Middle England
I thought that a union was there to protect its members' needs and requirements and not to indicate/instigate government policy. Are the unions trying to become a political party?
Bernie, UK
To Bernie, UK. You ask: are the TUs aiming to become a political party? Why not, I ask? The Labour Party has its roots in such movements that spawned trade unionism, so why can this not work in reverse? After all, we now do not have a "Labour" party (as such)in the UK: merely a choice between two right-wing political movements. Nature has a habit of filling a vacuum. No more so is this true that in politics. And if the TUs are seen - and willing - to fit the need, then so be it.
Alan Hall, UK
| If they cannot find better conditions or pay elsewhere then they should be happy with the job they have |
If employees are unhappy with their conditions or do not believe they earn enough, rather than running to their unions and going on strike they should go into the market place and see if another employer is prepared to pay them more. If they cannot find better conditions or pay elsewhere then they should be happy with the job they have. Unlike the countries with so called employee friendly policies such as France and Germany, the UK has very low unemployment and the Unions should appreciate this. I had a small pay cut last year and in the current climate in my industry I am prepared to accept this yet the public sector seem to have had above inflation pay rises for the past few years and are still complaining.
Rodney, UK To Rodney, UK. It's not as simple as you make out - and most people reading your letter will recognise this. Employers have their "union" - it is the CBI - which is now heavily supported by the Blair administration. The "engines of the wealth creators" - the ordinary employee on the shop floor, the nurse / teacher who actually "delivers the goods", those in the service sector who deal directly with fee-paying customers - must have their representatives too, to maintain the balance of power.
Alan Hall, UK
The trade unions gave up their rights to any muscles when they let the Thatcher government destroy the NUM and the mining industry.
Ian Gregory, Scotland
I have no problem with Trade Unions looking to work with the employers to better conditions for workers. Unfortunately this generally seems to involve less hours and more pay. What the unions conveniently forget is that there are masses of workers out there who don't belong to a union who also have a good work environment. The main issue is the public sector which is in general a complete anachronism when it comes to working conditions; reform is urgently needed in order to provide value for (our) money and efficiency. Shame the unions idea of a "new way of working together" doesn't include modernisation or change in any form.
Si W, N Yorkshire, UK
I'd be more impressed with the unions if they employed the workers themselves and provided a "service" to employers. In their present form they inhabit a dangerous fantasy-land where they don't understand commercial reality.
Tim Everitt, Scotland
In countries with liberal labour markets - the UK, US, Canada - unemployment is significantly lower than in more regulated economies (France, Germany amongst others). Unions care only for those in work, and are prepared to reward and protect their own members at the expense of the wider workforce. It would be political suicide for the Labour government to back down to this posturing.
Ben, England
Unions flexing their muscles again? I think not, the workforces of this country are voicing their opinions about changes to their working practices that some suit in Whitehall knows nothing about, and is only interested in getting it on the cheap, and making their balance books look healthy, after the way this government, with the help of the media totally demonised the fire service and their legitimate dispute, it is no wonder the unions are now threatening to pull the plug on 40million funding for a party that drops them from a great height to suit their own political agenda! Spin has become the norm in this government and now they have ensured they lose the next election by it!
Rob, UK
To Rob, UK. Unfortunately, you weaken your (otherwise excellent) argument by referring to the fireman's dispute. This was very clearly extreme politically motivated, and motivated to the point where it damaged the whole concept of Trade Unionism in this country. You and I know that their wage claims were downright unrealistic. Apart from that side issue, I agree with all else you say.
Alan Hall, UK
| When business leaders criticise unions they should realise that they are shooting themselves in the foot |
No-one likes change and unless it is explained and discussed, and sometimes compromises are made, there can be no way forward. At the same time change is not always for the good. Part of the role of the unions is to facilitate the process of communication and co-operation. There is a lot of talk of pro-unionists being stuck in a 'them-and-us' mentality but the employers and the government are at fault here too. When business leaders criticise unions they should realise that they are shooting themselves in the foot. The union should been seen as being there to help, if proposals for change were actually discussed with the people they affect instead of directed from on high by people who have never done the job (and in some cases never even seen it done by others) then a lot of the 'them-and-us' problem may be solved and changes would be more focussed and more successful.
Liz, Wales In the London Borough of Havering, the Tories have just wrested control and then awarded the councillors "allowance rises" (pay rises to the rest of us) with the leader "earning" more than �1000 per week. No wonder the staff of the authority are upset about their pay and the unions striking. (And I am sure a Labour administration would be no better.)
Mark, UK
Somebody has said that, "Tony Blair will make sure to never get flanked on the right". A clever observation about a great strategy taken by Blair. In the past, the Right have always succeeded by maligning Labour governments. Condemning Labour by vaguely alleging about sinister leftist leanings. They have used this to victims Labour governments without any evidence. And so Blair decided not to be a victim but a survivor even if it meant ditching the genuine demands of Labour. And that is why he has survived so far - by taking an aggressive rightist stand on all issues so that he does not get tainted by any poison the Right is desperate to use.
The unions should realize that this is sad but Mr Blair cannot afford to take care of their even genuine demands. It would be too dangerous for him. They should be thankful that they have a Labour government in office which at least ensures some basic ground rules. At least they do not get sacked, humiliated and mistreated in large numbers. A Thatcher-style govt would view them as enemies and have had no compunction in doing them in. Again and again. It might not be much but at least that is something.
Peter Saunders, UK
I've nothing against the unions. But they must not go back to the days of flying pickets and holding the country to ransom to achieve their aims. Remember the coal strike? Militant trade unionism is outdated, remember the days of Arthur Scargill, Derek Hatton?
Roger, UK
| The unions do not care about the country, their sole reason to exist is to benefit their members |
The unions do not care about the country, their sole reason to exist is to benefit their members and their members only. As union membership is dominated by the public sector it is inevitable that the logic of change will be resisted. Why should public sector employees want change, they believe their jobs exist for their own benefit not for the public. The public sector workers are protected by extensive sick pay schemes which in the main are widely abused, they are cushioned in later life with a good final salary pension paid by the public purse which most in the private sector, having contributed more to their own pensions could only envy. The Unions are one policy animals, self interest, greed and class division is their creed, they belong with the dodo.
Mike Hall, UK The Unions have an important role to play, as long as they do it in an intelligent manner. Greedy and restrictive (in those days government-supported) practises such as those which killed British industry in the seventies, and which gave Mrs. Thatcher carte blanche to drive in the final coffin-nails in the eighties will only lead to further unemployment. The unions should represent the workers whilst not undermining the employer. Sadly, intelligence is missing and abuse is rife on both sides.
Chris Weddle, Germany
SHOULD UNIONS BE STRONGER? Of course they should every time, what a mess this country is in, we all have to 'kow-tow' continually, we are afraid of losing our livelihoods but the 'Fat cats' take the cream all the time. The only thing a working person can do is withdraw their labour and the unions should be behind their members if the ballot tells them to do so. Come on UK wake up, things will never change whilst you are afraid to stand up for your rights. This would never happen in France, and they seem to be doing ok even with their large and militant trade unions.
Katrina, Kent, UK
I believe everyone has a right to join a union. However I think that only certain unions have any influence, and are useful to the member. The rail unions, postal unions and even FIRE unions have some clout because they provide essential public services. HOWEVER in most industries, the companies can run wild on employees without any fear of reprisals from unions or their frightened employees.
JJ, England
| I'm not bleating Brendan, just not employing |
I'd be happy to employ more people in my business, but with all the red tape strangling small business now I'm not going to. I'm not bleating Brendan, just not employing.
Duncan Barnes, Surrey UK If the unions are flexing their muscles it is hardly surprising. Blair's business friendly government has totally failed to provide British workers with rights on a level playing field basis compared with Europe. As a result multinationals usually unload British workers first because it is much cheaper and easier. The maximum legal redundancy pay in Britain is little over �6000. In Spain it is several years' pay.
Peter, UK
Unions need to stand up for their members. In local government large numbers of staff are seeing their salaries drop significantly as part of job evaluation exercises. Unison is part of that process, but should not be agreeing with a process which sees its members' salaries dropping so drastically - often after many years loyal service. Unison should be standing up on our behalf - otherwise why pay to be a member?
Paul Smith, UK
What good are unions? Well how about paid holidays, better training, improved health and safety, higher wages. With trade unions you can get all of these, without them.....well just look back to the Victorian era and before! Go out and join your union today!
John At, England
The strike weapon was perhaps useful in industrial disputes between manufacturing plants and their workforces, back in the nineteenth century. But for trades unions to be allowed to take strikes in the public services at the start of the twenty first century seems to me to be absolutely incredible. I would much prefer to see the trades unions campaigning for better working conditions, for better pension provision, and for better protection of workers at the lower end of the pay scale (and must congratulate them for their ceaseless efforts in favour of a minimum wage - which must now become a living wage). But strikes - definitely not!
Neil Alldred, Northern Ireland Civil servants have been told by Paul Boatang that there is a pay cap this year. Our union, the PCS, is moving towards strike action, but the Government knows we cannot afford to strike because the majority of civil servants earn below the national average. Therefore in the civil service world, the TUC can flex itsmuscles all day and all night but significant numbers of staff are unable to make a meaningful protest meaning the Government continues to impose pay offers below the rate of inflation.
John, Hastings, East Sussex
I think it is a good thing that unions are now 'challenging' the government on employee rights and other important social issues. However I would be disappointed if this newly re-found influence was used as it has historically been to further their own selfish interests and agenda. It is quite right that employee rights should be protected and enhanced, but not by defending the indefensible.
Philip, UK
What muscles? You only have to see the way the Labour Government railroaded the fire brigade union to see how weak and ineffective unions have become. If they stopped ploughing money into funding the Labour party and invested it in some decent employment lawyers you would see a more powerful force but they do not trust barristers because they are seen as upper class in a narrow minded 'them and us' mentality adopted by the management of the unions.
Duncan, London, UK
| The world is not ideal and that is why unions are needed |
Unions are essential to protect workers from unscrupulous employers. United we stand, divided we fall - an individual against a higher-ranking employer stands little chance of changing anything, but together people in unions can make a difference. In an ideal world employers would never be unfair or greedy, but the world is not ideal and that is why unions are needed.
Anonymous, UK Unions are weak because people no longer see there being any purpose of joining one because the employers can do exactly what they want. We should have partnerships but we don't - those in charge can do what they want without the need to bother with employees.
Roy Sheward, UK
Unions and employees are flexing their muscles more over the past few years but not as a result of increased militancy. European working directives have highlighted the failures of management in this country as evidenced by the many successful court rulings the Unions have achieved along with the escalating Industrial tribunal cases where employees win their cases. The workforce has modernised and adapted to changing conditions, but the rhetoric coming from the CBI still shows them living in the 19th century. They are the real obstacle to modernisation by refusing to embrace worker consultation for the benefit of all and not just the fat cats with their obscene packages and pension funds.
Michael Godfrey, UK
I've worked in unionised and non-unionised organisations as a manager. There is a case to be made for both. What is worrying is that so many of the correspondents here seem to have replaced the deference for the aristocracy and the squire with a deference to the owning/ executive/ financier class and assume that these people have some paternalistic in the man in the street. Come on, get real. The system relies on exploitation of something or someone somewhere. A dose of deflation in the economy would soon educate those who think the "bosses" are paternalists.
Nick James, UK
| For most people, their union is the only area of activism they will have any contact with |
The Trade Union movement began as a voice for the working class. Although it originated in the workplace, the improvement of the lifestyle of the working class became a major factor. Hence the connection with socialism. For most people, their union is the only area of activism they will have any contact with. While I feel it is appropriate for unions to give an opinion on behalf of its members, that should be a reflection of the majority of the membership, not one person. With regard to the public sector, as the government is technically the employer, I would hope that influence can be brought to bear where reform is required. However, it should be relevant to the union's primary focus group - the people it represents.
Roger, Luton, UK Like any organisation that grows, the unions now have enough managerial levels to detach them from the people they are supposed to represent. They need to stop all the pontificating, point scoring, jollies and in-fighting and get on with the job they're paid to do.
Tonyh, UK
Unions will be the death of this country. There was a time when employees took pride in their organisations, now unions are holding the UK to ransom with its demands costing business millions. What is worse is when a company goes out of business or moves overseas to cut costs an save money the unions come out complaining. I for one would like to see unions banned and at the very least having much of their power stripped.
Paul H, UK
Look at the countries that do not allow union formation and ask if you'd want to live there. Freedom of association is an important part of democracy, and that means taking the bad side with the good. Yes, occasionally unions fling their weight about rather too happily, but since employers have been doing that since time began it's rather a cheek to rail against the unions as if they are the only ones.
Katherine, UK
Remember George Orwell, "Some animals are more equal than others"? Trade Unions, especially at a local level, are a real pain in the behind. Just like the Freemasons, they will obstruct the career progress of anybody who is not one of their little clique - it's jobs for the boys all over again, with a different colour tie. But at least Masons won't expect you to swallow any hypocrisy about it all being in the name of "equality".
Mike R., UK
I don't see the need for unions. We are a free country, and as such, if we don't like a job we are in, we can walk out. I think businesses ought to ban employees from joining unions and sack anyone who does, for their own sake. The government can assist with this by removing red tape stopping employers doing this, as although I don't run a business, I object to people infringing other people's freedom to do as I please, especially if the person in question isn't doing anyone any harm.
Graeme Phillips, Germany, normally UK Union membership is at an all time low. Why? Because they don't represent me as a worker anymore. I stopped my contributions when the particular union I was in, started having representations at political rallies that had nothing to do with improving the rights or welfare of employees. Unions have done a great deal for workers in the past, but now they seem to jump on to any political bandwagon that has nothing to do with their original purpose and way out of their remit as an organisation. Anti Nazi League and Stop The War rallies, etc are all laudable causes, but doesn't have anything to do with getting me better pay, conditions of service, or protecting me from an unscrupulous boss, yet I see Union banners at these occasions. I don't want my hard earned contributions using in such a manner and if I did, I would use a proper political party.
David, UK
Workers will always have something that they feel is not quite right about their working conditions. If a business gave in and changed everything that workers felt was unfair they would have to take a huge cut to their profits, which benefits no-one, including employees. It is all just a huge balancing act, neither party is ever going to be totally happy (apart from maybe the managing directors). Unions are there to try and solve this balancing act which is a great idea, how else can workers voice their opinions collectively? The problems appear when unions start to get greedy and jump on the 'band-wagon' of taking industrial action. Yes this may be the only solution in some circumstances but it happens all too often to be taken seriously enough and to be constructive every time.
Phill, Peterborough, UK
| Unions are about democracy |
Nat (below) needs to wise up a bit - the fact is that companies where there is a strong union presence tend to be better paid, have more loyal employees who are bothered enough to want to improve things and tend to be better companies as a result. Unions are about democracy, about giving a voice to the people who actually carry out the work that runs the country. Without collective representation it is very hard to have your voice heard. Unions are not about Marxism or any other extremist point of view, they are about making sure the least visible, least powerful people in the country have a voice that can be heard.
Tina, UK If the unions see their role as facilitating an intelligent dialogue, that's can only be great news for Britain. Unfortunately I suspect that they'll revert to type, oppose modernisation and continue to peddle silly 1970s socialist dogma. More worryingly, Unions seem to serve as a form of 'licensed' organised crime. If they don't get what they want then they'll resort to extortion until they get it. I believe we need criminal anti-racketeering laws to tackle union extortion. At the very least, any right to strike should be matched by a legal responsibility to compensate those who suffer loss as a result of their action.
Damian, UK
The Union movement has a choice of whether to become an annoying irrelevance, or a constructive partner in improving the British Economy and hence the living standards of their members. If they become foolishly militant, as with the recent BA fiasco, and the impending Royal Mail strike, they will damage the reputation of the UK as a good place to do business, and perhaps more importantly for themselves, cause MORE job losses as companies struggle. If unions work with business and the government (as in Sweden, where strikes are seen as a drastic last resort), improvements can be made in a timely and sustainable manner. It is no surprise that living standards have risen fastest during the 90s, whilst unions have been "asleep".
David Phillips, UK
| Five years in to a Labour government and all the old genies are out of the bottle |
Five years in to a Labour government and all the old genies are out of the bottle. Bosses taking bigger pay without any increases in profitability, money being thrown hand over fist at failing public services, the middle classes being taxed to the point of making work a fools game and now the unions having meetings with Blair in Downing Street to try and head off trouble. Well done Tony, it's only taken you 6 years to bring back all of the trouble it took 20 to get rid of. When we're the sick man of Europe again, will Blair and the unions suggest our only salvation is to join the Euro?
P Carney, England, UK Unions are useful if they represent their members in the workplace, where their voices cannot be heard on mass by any other means. However, why do unions, whose total membership is only a couple of million believe that they can, and should, influence government - this is blatantly undemocratic. Also why should union leaders, who are paid for by their members try to further their own careers by becoming 'rent a quote' and giving opinions on things such as the Iraq war - this has nothing to do with their remit.
Stuart, England
A union is a form of lobbying group, like a business federation, a political party or an activist group. The fact that unions are very active at the moment is more to do with government not standing up to multinational companies that are ruining our culture, than anything else. When your pension has disappeared due to the scandalous way the stock market was run when companies like Enron creamed off millions, who can you turn to? The government just ain't listening, and neither are the Tory party for that matter! Get real, union members are normal people are getting very angry at the way they have been mistreated in recent years.
Liam, UK
| Union representatives somehow seem to transform into politicians themselves |
Unions are great in theory and if used properly, can wield a vast power. Unfortunately, Union representatives somehow seem to transform into politicians themselves, falling victim to the same corruptions and distractions. Contemporary unions appear to be reverse unions, trying to convince the people that government policy is what is needed - collecting payoffs from the government officials and union fees from the people. Quite a racket!
Joseph, USA Most of the comments reflect that the UNIONS are anti-social organisation. I am surprised that why we have such a dogmatic thought, their ideas may be useful for the wider population. I think it is good idea to exchange their thoughts.
Krishna Acharya, UK
The trouble with the unions is they seem to have their heads in the clouds, honestly believing that people who take the risks should not take the rewards and that nobody should ever be kicked out of their job. Naturally all the people at the bottom who clock off at 5pm and only do what they are told to do should be paid handsomely for their efforts. In a Labour government the unions flex their muscles - it happened in 1979 and it's happening again now. With any luck they'll bring down this government like they did the last Labour government and we can get someone who won't pander to their whims in office.
Nige, UK
Having recently been a victim of an unscrupulous employer, I do see the need for trade unions. However, they themselves need to be modernised to keep up with the modern workforce and business practices.
Alex Knox, UK
| You will find that the most successful unions are the ones who don't make the most noise |
You will find that the most successful unions are the ones who don't make the most noise. They are the ones who work with Government and employers, frequently influencing policy before it ever becomes formalised. They are also involved in cost cutting exercises from early in the process. They do more to safeguard their members' interests by being co-operative and informed than any amount of fist waving and heel bashing will ever achieve. Of course, the other side of the coin is that its difficult to proclaim a major policy achievement when it was never seen in public.
Judith, London Britain's class system has been replaced by a liquid, but highly capitalist, meritocratic ladder. Classes no longer exist, and unions are obsolete. They are confrontational forces in an age of co-operation.
Russ, UK
The question should not be "can the unions", but "should the unions influence public policy?"
I can see no reason why unionised people should get two votes over policy in the public sector, one as an elector, and one as a union member, while the rest of us get one. Unions work for their members, not the subjects of this country, and thus have less of an interest in what is right for "the people" than what is right for themselves. This may not even be a deliberate bias, but bias it is.
James McRae, UK
James McCrae asks why trade union members should influence the government as both electors and trade unionists. One might also ask that of the business men who get far more influence as donors to political parties. The difference is that trade unionism is carried out openly and democratically while business gets its influence behind closed doors.
Charles Moore, Scotland
There is no doubt that unions still can influence policy - the question is whether they should. At present the answer is no, because union leadership is often much more concerned about scoring political points than promoting the interests of its members. If the militants give way to those who really want to help union members, things might start to change for the better.
Jan Dawson, UK
As the impending postal strike looms while the Royal Mail is losing �3/4 million a day it is all too clear that unions can still stick their heads in the sand over the consequences of their actions. No one has an automatic right to ANY increase in wages unless there is a corresponding improvement in productivity, least of all where the business is losing money hand over fist. Until the unions realise that, and start to adopt a responsible attitude towards their members and their members' employers, then they don't deserve any say in government policy.
Dan, UK
Dan, UK - The possibility of a strike in Royal Mail isn't just about pay. There are issues around the way the business is being forced into operating by the Regulator. These proposed changes affect every area of the postal workers lot, hours of attendance, rest periods etc. Just the sort of areas unions are fully entitled to fight over on behalf of their members. Incidentally when did the Royal Mail become a "business" instead of a "service"?
Jenni, Bristol, England
Jenni, Bristol: That's the point. The Royal Mail became a "business" from Day One, but the unions never realised this. The current dispute is over pay and over performance. Why can't they get it into their heads that people should only get paid over and above the originally agreed pay scale when they perform better? Otherwise, what on earth have they done to deserve the rise? They've got to stop thinking that they're entitled to rises - because they're not. Go out and excel, invent, create, work above and beyond like everyone else does to get their rises.
Tanya, UK
| The balance of power has now shifted into the hands of company directors |
I think the Unions were too powerful during the 70's, but the balance of power has now shifted into the hands of company directors. Too much power leads to its abuse. There needs to be a balance, and the unions are still very much needed.
James, UK While there are bosses who put their own pay and profits before the welfare of the workforce, unions will always be necessary. Unfortunately the 'help yourself' mentality of the Thatcher years and some particularly bad officials have damaged the credentials of unions. It is a shame that unions have lost status, as they can be a useful asset to a company and its staff. It's very sad but I acknowledge that the unions have less profile now. I hope the government does listen to them, or they will be chopping off their own roots. It may yet cause it to topple.
David, UK
At least unions fight for their members rights. yes they may not always get things right but at least they're prepared to make a stand for what they believe in - a refreshing change in this self centred society.
Beri, UK
Same old unions, led by the same old unreconstructed-dinosaur leftist leaders. Same old rhetoric. Same old battles. Haven't they realised that the world has moved on? The state-sector is the last bastion of old-style trade-unionship - the sooner it is rooted out the better it will be for us all.
David Moran, Scotland/Australia Thanks to the trades union movement, we all enjoy a much more decent working life compared to 100 years ago. We get holidays, sick leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, 5 day weeks, shorter hours, minimum wage, safer working conditions, pensions (not necessarily good ones, but at least some) etc etc. The world has changed, but for the better, and it is good to have the trades Unions around, if only to remind employers that the work force can and will prevent a return to poorer working conditions.
Robbie, UK
At their recent AGM, the union that I am a member of had their members' terms and conditions fifth on the agenda. Top was the war in Iraq etc. When did unions decide that they would influence foreign policy? They exist only to work for their members' terms and conditions and the sooner they remember that the better.
Andrew Kelly, UK
While the unions control the purse-strings of the Labour party they can, and do influence the government's policy. Look how many strikes have been allowed to go ahead over the last couple of years.
Richard, UK
Unions do not act in their members' interest. This is illustrated by the Communication Workers Union balloting for a strike at Royal Mail. If the workers do strike it will be like "turkeys voting for Christmas". The Government will simply remove the Royal Mail monopoly and allow private firms to take over.
Carl, UK
| Trade unions should not just be seen as groups trying to get more pay |
We live in a society based on a class system - that is an objective reality. Some own, some sell their labour. This system hasn't changed in the last century. While British working people may have seen an improvement in their standard of living (at the expense of workers in the Third World), they still remain fundamentally exploited. Trade unions should not just be seen as groups trying to get more pay but as working people getting organised to defend their interests.
Bob, UK Yes unions can influence the government, but so can large multinationals. Who do you think the Government is more scared of?
Carl, UK
To Nat: Sorry to have accused you of being a Blairite, but you do sound like one! 68% = an irrelevant minority? Erm...
Ben Drake, York, UK
Ben Drake, York, UK: Eh? I'm not a Blairite though. Only 30% of all private sector workers are in a union. Only 68% of public sector workers are in a union. That's pretty irrelevant to most worker's lives in this country! Ben should stop assuming we've all got agendas - can't he see that his response to my comment is a great example of the old fashioned "us and them" mentality. He did it here in black and white and they can't even see it!
Nat, UK
As a union activist, Nat's comments make me laugh! Typical of the increasingly hysterical efforts by Blairites to dismiss unions as relics, dinosaurs etc. If we're truly irrelevant, why are they so desperate to attack us? Truth is, more and more workers are realising we have to stand up for our own interests (because New Labour surely aren't!) and that the most effective way to do that is in a union. The upsurge in disputes over pay and working conditions shows growing confidence and determination among working people. The government would do well to remember - dinosaurs have teeth!
Ben Drake, York, UK
The unions sound so pathetic nowadays. Their rantings just make me laugh out loud. It's like listening to some archaic old dialect - can they not hear themselves? The trouble is, these people only move in circles that are "unionised" so they've no idea how most people think of them: old-fashioned, irrelevant, useless, bureaucratic, obstacles. It's 2003. Get with it!
Nat, UK
The problem lies in the wage structure. Anyone earning the obscene amounts that CEOs and directors do nowadays are going to want to protect their salaries. No-one but no-one deserves or can justify earning the amount these fat cats do. A company cannot operate without its workers and without any union representation working conditions would be worse. They are only seen as militant because the powers that be portray them that way.
Stefan, UK
The two European economies that have displayed the highest, strongest and most secure levels of growth and wealth are Germany and Sweden. They are also the countries with the best provisions for worker and trade union participation in business and government. If UK business and government really want a prosperous (real) economy with social stability, then they should take to concerns of workers seriously. This is how to avoid strike action.
Lee Salter, UK
Lee Salter: I take it you have not kept up to date with your economics, Germany is in very big trouble mainly due to its Unions and very expensive social policies. Germany's unemployment rate is currently 10.8 % which is the highest it has been for five years. The German government has also realised and is trying desperately to reform many of the laws you seem to favour. Germany is heading for social unrest as hard decisions are fast approaching
Jon, UK
I used to work for a trade union and it was the worse place I've ever worked in my life. Trade unions are a joke and are only interested in playing politics and not in standing up for people's rights. I hope Tony Blair has the sense to ignore the TUC when it starts spouting Marxist nonsense next week.
Peter, UK I would like to second Peter, UK about working for a trade union. I also worked for one, and it was an appalling place. Virtually no work was done, but because the union dues just roll in year after year by Direct debit, everybody was happy. The particular union I worked for had only one concentration of organised members left, and hung on grimly to those. The idea that hard work and a positive response to their members needs might increase the membership was never considered. Too much bother. I would never ever belong to a British trade union.
Andrew Lale, UK
Alan Hall - Who are the "true working classes"? Not until the unions realise that defining someone by "class" is irrelevant to most people these days will they begin to be worth listening to.
Susan, UK
Yes, they CAN have an influence, but these days only in a very restricted capacity. The balance between the "administrators" and the "administrated" was destroyed by the Thatcher government. Unfortunately for us all, there is no longer a political party that represents the true "working classes" any more.
Alan Hall, UK
I was once against unions and unionism. But if the decision makers (i.e., the boards of companies) continue to reward themselves with massive pay rises, often coupled with massive redundancies, then is it any surprise that workers feel resentful and abused? If our "captains of industry" would lead by example then there would be no problem.
Grant Valentine, Reading, UK
Grant Valentine: Think of the logic before you criticise large pay packets. Redundancies are part of a re-structuring programme and cost-cutting measures. These are undertaken to turn around or save a company. If this is not completed successfully, the company will often go bust or have to lay off even more people. The bosses are therefore being rewarded for successful completion of this phase which is for the good of the company as a whole. That's their job. I am sick of people complaining about these large salaries and bonuses - except for the Glaxo boss who was rewarded for failure, the other bosses absolutely deserve it. They have met their targets, good luck to them.
Patricia, UK
I think the unions are just concerned that they are fast becoming an relic of the past that even Labour governments have realised should be ignored.
Ian S, UK, Birmingham
| Unions are there to make sure that workers aren't unfairly treated |
Over the last twenty years employees in both the private and public sectors have had their employment deal eroded - short term contracts, contracting out of services, removal of benefits in kind, decimation of pension schemes and below-inflation pay rises. Unions are there to make sure that workers aren't unfairly treated. I agree that in the seventies they had too much power, but it's right that they should voice their members' concerns. "Working together" will never be fully possible because employers want to cut costs whilst the employees, not unnaturally, want to make sure that the real value of their salary package is not reduced.
Helen, England Unions are in place to safeguard the members that they represent. Any government that ignores the unions' view ignores a percentage of the electorate, exactly what the Tories did!
S. Murphy, Wales, UK
I'm sorry but the reason for this lies squarely at the feet of the fat cat, greedy directors who continue to call for workers wage restraint yet award themselves obscene levels of salary and bonuses. After a while even the most dedicated employee starts to feel taken for a mug.
Gerry, Scotland
To John M, Lyne Meads, UK. Let me answer your question. This country of ours is steeped in class structure. There will always be a "I'm the rich boss, you're the dependant needy employee" culture in the UK. And the Blair administration has done little to erode this culture.
Alan Hall, UK
When will we all start to work together instead of seeing everything as a "them and us" situation? Working together will not only improve commitment and results it will also help to remove the burdens of unnecessary layers of administration and wasteful working practices which have been one of the main reasons for the failure of many British organisations to compete effectively in the modern World.
John M, Lyne Meads, UK
The Unions maybe looking for support in the backlash for pension and fat cat scandals. I hope they get it. Although not pro-union I think companies have been having it their own way for too long. I don't want a return to the old unions, being old enough to remember the Labour toppling "winter of discontent", but the balance is currently too much in favour of the company. Lastly, I naively thought no one believed corporate propaganda, then I read John M of Lyne Meads comments; it all sounds logical, but it is intended to get as much out of the employee for as little pay as possible. Play on their sense of loyalty etc.
David, UK
Only a fool would completely ignore the views of employees. An atmosphere of cooperation is a much more efficient one in which to achieve goals than one of conflict. You can impose rules and regulation on a workforce. You cannot impose desire and passion. But then again you do not look big and tough and macho in the headlines without the odd conflict do you?
Peter, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
