Comments on: How the ‘shabby’ Unison leadership put workers’ rights in jeopardy

By: Will Podmore

Will Podmore — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:19:09 +0000

Well Harry, why didn’t you stand for election and oust him?
It’s always somebody else’s fault, for some people!
Michael seems to be pretty anti-union himself: is he one of those ‘activists’ who attack their own union under the false flag of attacking ‘union bureaucrats’?

By: Harry

Harry — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 06:55:27 +0000

Disgusting behaviour by UNISON but not surprising. I had a nightmare couple of years with my employer. The UNISON rep would turn up late for meetings or not at all, when he was there he was silent, it was impossible to get hold of him to plan for meetings. Cost me a period of depression, my job and a good few quid, not to mention my subs!!

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:42:42 +0000

“Totally justifiable and justified”? Really? Not only was the original disciplinary action taken on the basis of a transparently absurd interpretation of a leaflet (as was proved at tribunal), these victimised activists are to bullied out of their right to defend the outcome of that tribunal? And by risking a legal precedent that would see workers deterred from taking legit claims against unscrupulous employers?

The idea that these leading activists had an “anti-union” agenda is risible.

By: Will Podmore

Will Podmore — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:50:13 +0000

Unison’s action against these 4 splitters was totally justifiable and justified.
The four are relying on the state to defend them against the union.
And, it is no surprise that the judge rules against, and insults, the union.
And it is no surprise that Red Pepper defends the splitters against the union.
Glenn Kelly writes, “99.9% of employment tribunal cases will obviously be a worker verses an employer.” No, if the four are not defeated, then there will be all too many cases where anti-union ‘members’ attack the union in employment tribunal cases.