Originally Posted by
ColdWalker
The one closed shop I worked in was a revelation. The union (TGWU) was one of the most professional sets of people to work with. Sure they stuck up for their members, just as I held out for my employer's best interests. But they also came up with some great initiatives and in many ways were a real support to management. In the end the company's US owners shafted all the staff, trying to raid the pension pot. The TG immediately waded in and ponied up the funds to fight them in court, welcoming management into the fray as well as their members.
One of the problems with outside perception of trade unions is, I think, the lack of clarity caused by the size of the unions and the way that they're organised.
The reality seems to be that different branches do things in different ways, with different levels of effectiveness. For an illustration, you only have to think back to the problem with the proposed closure of the Corus plant on Teesside, where Unite was heavily involved in a satisfactory solution; and compare that to the rancorous and intractable issues simultaneously happening at BA (I think all sides would agree with the adjectives, whoever they believe was in the right).
Personally, I wouldn't have any particular problem with a cabin crew member quietly displaying a trade union sign, if permitted to do so by BA. I don't think that it would indicate likely poor performance; on the contrary, some of the best cabin crew I've seen on BA have been die-hard trade union members and proud XXXXers. But I
would be concerned if it was being displayed in order to intimidate non-union members of cabin crew. I doubt that the problem was as widespread as reported, but it seems virtually certain that some of that has gone on through the years, particularly during the dispute - and I would be dismayed at any suggestion of it.