So why am I a member of a union?

"Why am I a member of a union?"

It's always been a cry of some people, "Why should I be a member of the union? It costs money and what do I get out of it?" 

Well the union has many strings to it, but the basic underlying tenet is that it is a coming together of people to help each other, mainly, though not exclusively, in the workplace.

Now this help takes all forms, from the obvious traditional "collective bargaining" to the more modern add-ons such as legal and financial services.  However on the way there are other traditional but less well known services such as individual representation, whether in a discipline case, where accusations have been made by management, a poor sick record, or where the individual is accusing management of poor behaviour (whether illegal or just against BT's policy).

Starting at the beginning, our original union was formed, as were most others, in order that the workers could speak to management on a more even footing. One worker could be sacked easily, but many, or all, of the workforce would be difficult to replace simply, if at all. These pioneer "unionists" were after better working conditions and better pay, something many of us today take for granted. Forgetting that the health and safety laws, good working conditions and relatively good pay, or social security if you are out of work, have only come about as a result of the work of unions, and/or, the political party they formed; The Labour Party.

So unions representing the whole workforce go to management and put in a claim for … whatever. Better pay, higher London Weighting, less hours, better attendance patterns and management say… (here I'd like to tell you that they say "yes" but in reality it's more likely to be) … "maybe", or "if …" or "no, but …" and eventually a deal is struck. We may not get everything we want but we have something.

Who thinks we'd get anything without the union?

On a more personal level, have you ever got into trouble with your manager? Sometimes we can do this without realising it. Sometime it could be more serious than we thought and the manager may want to instigate discipline procedures. Or you may have been sick more often than BT likes you to be and wants to give you a warning. In either of these positions the union, in the form of one of your branch officers, represent you at the meeting with your manager, or manager's manager. 

Of course there is also the legal aid the union can give you with personal claims. If you are driving a BT van and the proverbial white van man (or woman not being sexist) runs into you and you get whiplash injuries or worse, the union can help you claim for damages. 

So the next time someone says to you that they are thinking about leaving the union over whatever they perceive the union hasn't done right, ask them what they would do the next time they have an accident or they want a pay rise or get into trouble. Or are they thinking that they will take advantage of your generosity by paying for the union that protects them by default 'cos you are paying for it and it protects you... and them as well.

What a lot of fuss about a vicar!

What a lot of fuss about a vicar! Well Bishop anyway. While I understand that the Church does depend on a large number of Gay clergy. Not to mention a not so few number of shy, gay ones, and I also understand that some parts of the Church are reading literal meanings into some Bible passages, whilst ignoring the literal meaning of others.*

I cannot really say I am very bothered about the rights, or wrongs, of a man who wants to be a religious leader in an religion which condemns his sexuality, and then gets caught up in its politics and prejudices.

But then I'm a lifelong atheist!

However I do worry about the rights of those ordinary members of society who want to work as a teacher or perhaps a schoolkeeper or a nurse and who find themselves in line for a job in a school or clinic run by a church. For if they are gay or lesbian they will not be protected from discrimination when the new regulations come in, at the end of 2003, to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Following lobbying by various religious groups, when construction of the directive was going ahead in Europe, a clause was already included in the directive that allowed religions to prevent gays and lesbians from becoming clergy. This was because it would be seen as a "genuine occupational requirement" if being gay or lesbian is against the ethos of the religion.

The new draft regulations were prepared with this clause transposed into it as regulation 7(2) and came as no great surprise. However at the last minute and after all the consultation had finished, the government has inserted another clause 7(3), which goes beyond the directive and may even be illegal.

Who says so? Me? No, The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, they are concerned that the new clause goes beyond what the directive requires and therefore the regulations cannot be moved under European Communities Act 1972 which covers such regulations. It would need primary legislation, (the Government had always said they couldn't include protection for gays and lesbians in the field of goods and services because there is no time for primary legislation!)

So the TUC and others are campaigning for this to be changed, you might think that this wouldn't be a problem if Parliament's own committee says it’s a problem, but I'm a sceptic and will wait to see. I think the "yes" men and women will pass it and it'll have to be challenged in the courts.

I hope I'm wrong


* Like women should be silent in church and no one should not eat pork: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Leviticus 11:7-8 & Deuteronomy 14:7-8