# UNISON or GMB?



## october_lost (Jun 26, 2012)

There is a dept. at work where UNISON have recognition rights, but due to an emerged dispute among a number of workers - GMB have made an appearance, to the point where they have a larger and probably the only active presence in that department. Problem is GMB don't have recognition rights, and this has hampered a dispute they undertook recently, both unions exist in the one department and the sensible thing would be for some collective agreement that one union carve-up the department for the common good.

Management already recognize more than one union, so another shouldn't be a problem. So I am wondering what people suggest in this situation. I surmise;

GMB 
-have a significant presence in the department
-done a lot of work off their own back
-on the surface of it, a more militant TU

UNISON
-already recognized
-much larger within the workplace, overall
-have an existing committee

Any thoughts?


----------



## ddraig (Jun 26, 2012)

GMB


----------



## october_lost (Jun 26, 2012)

Any particular reason why?


----------



## ddraig (Jun 26, 2012)

cos ime unison are too big and shit to care and bang on about recruiting rather than actual campaigning
and prentis needs to follow through with his sabre ratling


----------



## zippyRN (Jun 26, 2012)

ddraig said:


> cos ime unison are too big and shit to care and bang on about recruiting rather than actual campaigning
> and prentis needs to follow through with his sabre ratling


 
Their size seems to be unison's main recruiting tool,  odd isn't it when the RCN  opened up membership to HCAs  that  a lot of HCAs left Unison and came across to the RCN ....  ( where 400, 000 members might be smaller than Unison but it;s 400 k members of the Nursing family )

This is aside from the way in which the TUC  is overly Party political  and it doesn't matter what a none labour government would do it would be wrong ...   but when Labour,  dismantle it and rebuild it with a new name and a new coat of paint it;s greatest thing since sliced bread ...   and aside from the utter ignorance shown by Unison over PFI


----------



## ddraig (Jun 26, 2012)

indeed and agreed


----------



## october_lost (Jun 26, 2012)

I think attitudes to the labour party etc is kind of superfluous to what union activists do. Its hardly going to put someone off joining X trade union because it has a dumb attitude towards the Labour Party.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 26, 2012)

Dunno really.

I was a UNISON member and found it faintly uninspiring - too many of the officers were too cosy with the management.

But branches will differ.

Having two unions in one workplace can give management a great (from their point of view) opportunity to divide and rule, playing each union off against the other.

What's the deal when it comes to getting a union recognised?  Is there a chance that you can get enough GMB members to get formal recognition?  (I can't remember whether it's based on number or percentage of workers, and if so whether that's by department or employer)


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 26, 2012)

Go with the more militant one and attempt to convince others to do so too. There's nothing worse than a union that is an annexe of management with friendships and loyalties fucking up the negotiating table. A union that never backs their words with action is just a paper exercise.


----------



## october_lost (Jun 27, 2012)

PT, our employer recognizes several already and one of those is very small, so I should not see this as a problem. Either way TU recognition is 50% members or 40% in favour of the union in a secret ballot.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionsintheworkplace/DG_179204

C66, agreed, in general, but many of us don't have the luxury of the choice.


----------



## zippyRN (Jun 28, 2012)

october_lost said:


> I think attitudes to the labour party etc is kind of superfluous to what union activists do. Its hardly going to put someone off joining X trade union because it has a dumb attitude towards the Labour Party.


 
part of the problem is  even if the political part of someone's subs go to the general political funds  rather than the party political funds , it still means the union is tied to party politics  compared  to the none TUC unions and the 'not a union '  professional representative  organisations ...


----------



## zippyRN (Jun 28, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Dunno really.
> 
> I was a UNISON member and found it faintly uninspiring - too many of the officers were too cosy with the management.


 
was this a workplace where   senior stewards and the convenor  were paid by the employer  to do union work and  not do the actual job  they  were appointed to do in the first place? 



> But branches will differ.
> 
> Having two unions in one workplace can give management a great (from their point of view) opportunity to divide and rule, playing each union off against the other.
> 
> )


 
which is where a plurality of unions is useful and a proper grown up staff side committee ...  the NHS is effectively  forced into that  because of  different professional groups  acting for staff representation or  it being  tied to different unions ( and i nthe old days before ODPs were HPC registered they dad to recognise AODP becasue they ran the 'voluntary' register of ODPs where now  ODPs could be a member of any relevant union or professional association  not just AODP - hence the reason NATN is now AfPP...)


----------



## Raminta (Jun 28, 2012)

I think UK unions quite right wingers. Is any proof their are Marxist anti capitalist?


----------



## october_lost (Jun 28, 2012)

UNISON has two funds, a political and campaigning one. In my branch, I know of only one person in the political fund, and I believe they simply ticked the wrong box.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

zippyRN said:


> part of the problem is  even if the political part of someone's subs go to the general political funds  rather than the party political funds , it still means the union is tied to party politics  compared  to the none TUC unions and the 'not a union '  professional representative  organisations ...


Not true. If you opt out of paying into Unison's political fund, it goes into a general campaign fund. Not party political.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 28, 2012)

zippyRN said:


> was this a workplace where senior stewards and the convenor were paid by the employer to do union work and not do the actual job they were appointed to do in the first place?


 
I think the Branch Secretary was on 'facility time' for the majority of, if not the whole time.  I think a few others may have got a day a week, but other than facility time for meetings, most if not all of the workplace reps did their 'actual job' most of the time.  As an ex NALGO branch, paid staff were more 'support' than 'stewards' at branch level, but there were paid officers at the regional office. 

Quite a few of the reps were quite senior in grade, though.  Actually attempting to represent the views of front line staff tended not to go down well with the management, and one of my colleagues was told (off the record of course) to give up union activism if they wanted to progress in their career...



zippyRN said:


> which is where a plurality of unions is useful and a proper grown up staff side committee ...


 
Yes, so long as there's enough unions that are big enough to do this. And can cope with talking to each other.



october_lost said:


> UNISON has two funds, a political and campaigning one. In my branch, I know of only one person in the political fund, and I believe they simply ticked the wrong box.


 
Not quite my understanding, but it may have changed since I moved from a UNISON sort of job.

UNISON was the result of a merger between NALGO (which had not been party affiliated) and COHSE and NUPE (one or both of which were affiliated to the labour party.)

NALGO's political fund would undertake political activity - campaigning on issues but not specifically supporting one political party, not giving funds to a political party, and not giving members a vote in any party's business.

At the merger, UNISON ran two political funds, one non affiliated (former NALGO) and one affiliated to the labour party.  Unless you asked to change, pre-existing members would continue in the political fund appropriate to their former union.  New members could choose which one to join (or to opt out of course.)


----------



## october_lost (Jun 28, 2012)

I think your talking about pre-merger individuals only. Any current application form for UNISON shows two funds, which people can pay into. The problem still remains that the 'General Political Fund' can basically mirror Labour Party policy, but that is another thing entirely...



> UNISON's political fund is divided into two sections: the General Political Fund and the Affiliated Political Fund. UNISON uses the General Political Fund (GPF) to pay for political campaigning at branch, regional and national level as well as for research and lobbying in Parliament to pursue UNISON's objectives and priorities.
> It is not affiliated to any political party, but the money in the fund is used to support local campaigns, to give a boost to our big national political campaigns and to pay for political advertising.
> In the run-up to general or local elections, the fund has been used for effective advertising campaigns to ensure that issues of importance to UNISON are high on the agenda.


----------



## zippyRN (Jun 28, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Not true. If you opt out of paying into Unison's political fund, it goes into a general campaign fund. Not party political.


 
But Unison is  still part of the TUC , stills purchases MPs and still has significant numbers of votes in matters over the labour parties  management.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2012)

Purchases MPs?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 28, 2012)

october_lost said:


> I think your talking about pre-merger individuals only. Any current application form for UNISON shows two funds, which people can pay into.


 
Yes, that's what I meant by 





Puddy_Tat said:


> New members could choose which one to join (or to opt out of course.)


 


zippyRN said:


> But Unison is still part of the TUC , stills purchases MPs and still has significant numbers of votes in matters over the labour parties management.


 
Yes, it's in the TUC.  Not all TUC unions are labour party affiliated (e.g. RMT)

Yes, UNISON has labour party links, but only those members who are in the affiliated political fund have any say in this.


----------



## zippyRN (Jun 29, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Purchases MPs?


 
Affiliated unions supply  a lot of money to the PLP and have considerable power in  choosing  PPCs  etc ...


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 29, 2012)

Purchasing MPs? You'll have to explain what this means and how it works?


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 30, 2012)

i was a nupe steward when i was a student nurse, and opposed unification. i am deeply uncomfortable at the idea of sharing a branch with my manager. I will be starting my new job soon and facing the same choice of union- mine would be GMB.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 30, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> i was a nupe steward when i was a student nurse, and opposed unification. i am deeply uncomfortable at the idea of sharing a branch with my manager. I will be starting my new job soon and facing the same choice of union- mine would be GMB.


 
I kinda see your point. Within NALGO, all grades (including management) were represented.

I would feel uncomfortable about having an situation that people should feel they have to leave the union if they reach a certain level, but also find it uncomfortable having a meeting where you're not really sure if one of the managers is there as a union member or as a manager (I came very close to asking one manager this on one occasion and pointing out that at a union meeting, she didn't out-rank me...)

Another organisation I worked for, the NALGO rep in one workplace was also that workplace's supervisor, which was faintly 

Although it can be organised if (for example) reps agree to have constituencies of members where there's no possible conflict of interest. Within my last UNISON workplace, the understanding was that members could approach any one of four or five reps within the department.

There's possibly something to be said for a separate organisation / branch for senior managers (e.g. there's a separate staff association for senior civil servants, and from memory the police federation only organise up to a certain rank.)

As far as the merger went, I was broadly speaking behind it, on the principle that the larger the union, the harder it is for management to divide and rule. Also, despite being NALGO at the time, I didn't approve of the huge (class based) divide in terms and conditions between 'manual workers' and 'officers' that existed. There is however a challenge in a large union still being able adequately to represent workers in small workplaces and / or niche occupations.


----------



## Schmetterling (Mar 2, 2013)

*crash thread*    I used to be with Unison when I was employed by the NHS.  I am now employed by a private healthcare provider (will name via PM) and am trying to find out which union would be best for me.  The problem is; each union I telephone tells me they can represent me/they are the right one to join but ... hm... I am not convinced the people I have spoken to really know.

Can I pm one of you with the company name please?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 2, 2013)

Schmetterling said:


> *crash thread*  I used to be with Unison when I was employed by the NHS. I am now employed by a private healthcare provider (will name via PM) and am trying to find out which union would be best for me. The problem is; each union I telephone tells me they can represent me/they are the right one to join but ... hm... I am not convinced the people I have spoken to really know.


 
I don't know the healthcare field well enough to go into specifics.

But it may be worth a look at the TUC's union finder to see if there's recognition at your employer (although if it's the sort of employer who's grown through acquisition / privatisation, the recognition of union A may only apply to workplace X and so on)

Gut feeling is the best union for you is probably the one with formal recognition, or failing that, the one with the most existing members in your workplace.

Or is it the sort of place where anyone who's in a union will keep quiet about it so as not to get attacked by the management and you don't feel comfortable asking any of your colleagues if they are in a union? 

If there's no recognition / few members in your workplace, then I guess the decider should be which union has a set-up that can cope with representing individuals in non-union workplaces.  Some unions don't seem that good at thinking beyond big workplace / single employer based branches.

A friend is a care worker (the sort who travels to peoples' homes rather than a care home or hospital) - she's one of the few people in her 'workplace' to be a union member, and she's in GMB - and has found them reasonable.

If you're more in the technical / scientific side of things, then Prospect may be worth a look - not the most left-wing of unions (and also non party affiliated) but they seem more geared up towards individual members on individual contracts and even those with self employed status.  I've been a member for a couple of years but not had an occasion to call on their services so can't comment on what they are like when the shit hits the fan.


----------



## Schmetterling (Mar 2, 2013)

Thank you Puddy_Tat. I tried the union finder a couple of days ago and again just now. This is what I get:

'We have no record of union recognition at this company, though our records are not complete.'

I am bit loathe to ask too many colleagues as I don't quite know yet how much they can be trusted. I will look at your suggstion; the GMB. I shall pm you the name of the company too.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 2, 2013)

Mutterings on the grapevine of a GMB & Unison merger. Anyone heard owt more?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 2, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Mutterings on the grapevine of a GMB & Unison merger. Anyone heard owt more?


 
That one had passed under my radar, but it sounds like it's possible

FT report here

There's certainly a fair amount of collaboration between the public sector unions at the moment in standing up to the cuts.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 2, 2013)

On recent experience, 'join UNISON' is not on my to do list, so the 'Wobblies' are looking good presently.


----------



## october_lost (Mar 2, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Gut feeling is the best union for you is probably the one with formal recognition, or failing that, the one with the most existing members in your workplace.


Yeah, check your T's and C's or your contract. Negotiation rights are usually listed there.


----------

