On 26 Aug, 23:56, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
MIG wrote





On Aug 25, 11:40*pm, " wrote:
The corollary of that is, when Bob Crow's members
come to him with some ridiculous claim he should tell them where to
get off. *It is quite wrong to suggest that defence lawyers are
simply
paid mouthpieces without the abilty, indeed duty, to advise their
clients accordingly.
It's equally wrong to claim that a union would support a member with
a
riduculous claim. *They can't afford it, for a start.

How many such claims are there per year and how much would fighting
cost ?

It may be be worthwhile fighting some cases even for foolish members to
discourage employers from "trying it on" and so members will think
"they supported xxxx so they will certainly support me" and continue as
members.

If I were a lay rep (which I have been) I might give some of my own
time for a member on the lines of being present at a meeting with
management where (without necessarily agreeing with the claim) I would
say "The member believes that x is the case and is unhappy about it.
I think that it would be a good idea for you to help the member not to
feel unhappy about this any more, and I suggest doing y by z date to
show goodwill ... (or whatever)"

Having someone to represent one's interests and note what has been
agreed can make all the difference, when the alternative might be to
grumble about it privately and then do something silly out of
frustration.

But I doubt if I'd recommend the union spending subscription funds on
sending in a lawyer or paid official.