rep helping non union members ?

crabstoes · Post by **crabstoes** » 09 Jan 2017, 18:15

we don't have a rep in our small office , membership is split 50/50. if we have an issue we contact rep in nearest mail centre for advice.
problem is. rep is happy to deal with concerns of non members as much as members . even if he visits the office it is a free for all. when I was in the NUS , union business was strictly for those who actually paid dues. what is the official line with the CWU. ?

worktotime · Post by **worktotime** » 09 Jan 2017, 19:05

get him to hand the non members a form to join before he gives them any help or advice , that's what our rep does and just walks away , no freebies .

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 09 Jan 2017, 20:06

The rep in question isn't being a generous and caring human being - he's being a mug. On top of that he's making mugs out of those that pay their dues. He's out of order IMHO.

mbavelja · Post by **mbavelja** » 10 Jan 2017, 08:37

jetblack wrote:The rep in question isn't being a generous and caring human being - he's being a mug. On top of that he's making mugs out of those that pay their dues. He's out of order IMHO.

So if you saw a colleague being screwed over by management you would want to know if they were a union member before helping?
If the one of the basic tenets of trade unionism is education, then by not trying to help educate his colleagues the rep would be failing in his duty as a trade unionist.
How do you try to convert non union members unless you show them the benefits of being a trade union member?

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 10 Jan 2017, 11:17

Some of the worst trade unionists are trade union members. Should I help members who deliberately undermine the union just because they pay a few quid a.week.

Discuss.....

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 10 Jan 2017, 12:20

mbavelja wrote:
jetblack wrote:The rep in question isn't being a generous and caring human being - he's being a mug. On top of that he's making mugs out of those that pay their dues. He's out of order IMHO.
So if you saw a colleague being screwed over by management you would want to know if they were a union member before helping?
If the one of the basic tenets of trade unionism is education, then by not trying to help educate his colleagues the rep would be failing in his duty as a trade unionist.
How do you try to convert non union members unless you show them the benefits of being a trade union member?

+1

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 10 Jan 2017, 14:03

We'll have to agree to disagree then. To me they are freeloaders - and I personally object to paying subs that are in effect being spent on people who have not the character or common nous to support their union and so, therefore, their fellow workers and colleagues.
Let them get advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau or let them pay for a solicitor - getting free advice and support from a union rep completely undermines the whole idea of a workers union paid for by its members. Why in Gods name should I pay my sub, when I can call on the union for my own purposes whenever I want ?
Union reps helping none union members acts as a disincentive to paid up members of the union who do the right thing. Not living in the real world to ask them to turn the other cheek - and its not fair to ask them to.

Aren't they getting enough for free when they take union negotiated pay increases and other benefits and improvements to their working conditions/terms and conditions ?
Shouldn't they get together and collectively refuse to take that which they played absolutely no part in securing ? If they were honourable people that is, the kind of people who would indeed be worthy of help.
It aint gonna happen.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 10 Jan 2017, 15:08

jetblack wrote:Shouldn't they get together and collectively refuse to take that which they played absolutely no part in securing ? If they were honourable people that is, the kind of people who would indeed be worthy of help.
It aint gonna happen.

Should they get together and refuse to do lapsing (union negotiated) or refuse to do park&loop (union negotiated) or go beyond 3.5 hr deliveries ( union negotiated ) or the thousand other not so wonderful changes to their terms and conditions that had also to be negotiated by the union as the downside to the pay rises and other benefits?

You could argue that those changes would have happened anyway but that's just guesswork, much like saying the pay rises and benefits would have been offered without the union. What you can't do is have it both ways. Anyway have you any answers to my dilemma?

Should I help members who deliberately undermine the union at every turn just because they cough up a couple of bucks "insurance" every week?

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 10 Jan 2017, 15:46

fishtank wrote: Should I help members who deliberately undermine the union at every turn just because they cough up a couple of bucks "insurance" every week?

1) No, you shouldn't - but thats ultimately at your discretion. I personally would have to know the extent of the "undermining", but generally, if they are taking the piss, then no, you shouldn't help them just cos they are in the union.
2) Two wrongs don't make a right.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 10 Jan 2017, 16:05

jetblack wrote: 1) No, you shouldn't - but thats ultimately at your discretion. I personally would have to know the extent of the "undermining", but generally, if they are taking the piss, then no, you shouldn't help them just cos they are in the union.

So I can use my own judgment when it comes to members but not when it comes to non members.

2)Two wrongs don't make a right.

No but ignoring one wrong but not the other makes you a hypocrite.

The union makes me ignore the selfish member's behaviour, I can't refuse to help a member no matter how much of an arsehole he is otherwise I get called into the branch to explain myself, why should I then make myself a hypocrite by refusing to help decent, hard working non members just because they don't pay the union money? I'm not talking about spending any of your time or the union's precious pennies, I'm talking about me using my knowledge to help a fellow worker. Something you think is out of order.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 10 Jan 2017, 16:09

The very ethos of RMC is to help all posties. Otherwise, we would be asking for proof of membership when you join.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 10 Jan 2017, 16:45

fishtank wrote:
jetblack wrote: 1) No, you shouldn't - but thats ultimately at your discretion. I personally would have to know the extent of the "undermining", but generally, if they are taking the piss, then no, you shouldn't help them just cos they are in the union.
So I can use my own judgment when it comes to members but not when it comes to non members.

Yes, thats right.

fishtank wrote:
2)Two wrongs don't make a right.

fishtank wrote: I can't refuse to help a member no matter how much of an arsehole he is otherwise I get called into the branch to explain myself, why should I then make myself a hypocrite by refusing to help decent, hard working non members just because they don't pay the union money? I'm not talking about spending any of your time or the union's precious pennies, I'm talking about me using my knowledge to help a fellow worker. Something you think is out of order.

Its a false dichotomy.

You are undermining the efforts and monetary contributions made by union members by helping none union members. If you want to be a saviour do some voluntary work with the homeless ie. people deserving of your time and effort.
When non union members see the help and assistance that is available to union members maybe then this will act as the incentive to get their heads out from up their own arse.
I can't say it any more plainly, and I'm already repeating myself. Its one of those things where I reckpn we'll have to agree to differ.

Only thing I would say is that paying union members should possibly have a say on wether their rep(s) help non members. You have, by default (as far as I am aware), no mandate from the members to do so. The training received by union reps, and paid for by the members, is by virtue of the members, and, I would argue, quite obviously for the benefit of the members.

WOBBLY · Post by **WOBBLY** » 10 Jan 2017, 16:56

Whilst I may sympathise with your moral stance fishtank (I do get where you're coming from) I do not agree with you. Members who do not pay do not have a right to union representation, members who do pay have PAID for the right to representation! Simples!

If it's ok for union reps to help non-union members then maybe the entire membership should just cancel their subs! After all if you can get it for free why carry on paying it? Can't imagine that catching on somehow!

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 10 Jan 2017, 17:01

Non union members do not receive union representation, neither the OP nor myself said they did, What they will get from me is advice and support. Union representation is a whole different ball game.

crabstoes · Post by **crabstoes** » 10 Jan 2017, 19:53

by WOBBLY » Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:56 pm
[quote]
Whilst I may sympathise with your moral stance fishtank (I do get where you're coming from) I do not agree with you. Members who do not pay do not have a right to union representation, members who do pay have PAID for the right to representation! Simples!

If it's ok for union reps to help non-union members then maybe the entire membership should just cancel their subs! After all if you can get it for free why carry on paying it? Can't imagine that catching on somehow.

I AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT ABOVE . if posties are too tight to pay dues they do not deserve advice from a rep .
its like going to the pub for a pint and expecting it for free while others have to pay